sM^    ^o^^.-  S.ACi 


.„.-«-_  .-»amm  vUTLINK 
DEBATES-  \M  ™ 

iQi^QUESTibN^  fomiscussroN 

EXCELSIOR  PUBLISHING  HOUSE. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2008  with  funding  from  ' 
IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/completedebatercOOcarerich 


rrjEj::m 


COMPLETE  DEBATER 


ooiNrT.A.i3Nri  ]Nrc3- 


DEBATES,  OUTLINES  of  DEBATES 


QUESTIONS  for  DISCUSSION. 


New  York: 

EXCEl^SIOR     I^UBT^ISMrNTO     HOUSK, 

29  AND  31  Beekman  St. 


COPYRIGHT,  18»3, 

BY 

EXCELSIOR  PUBLISHING  HOUSK 


y-<m 


CONTENTS. 


PAGB 

Rules  of  Debate 9 

PART  I. 

COMPLETE   DEBATES  . 

SUBJECTS. 

1.  Is  the  protection  afforded  to  American  Industry  by- 

duties  on  imports  beneficial  to  the  American  i)eople    11 

2.  Whicli  is  of  the  greatest  Benefit  to  his  Country,  the 

Warrior,  the  Statesman,  or  the  Poet  ? 19 

3.  Are  the  Mental  Capacities  of  the  Sexes  equal  ? 35 

4.  Is  Capital  Punishment  j  ustifiable  ? 49 

5.  Does  Morality  increase  Avith  Civilization  ? 68 

6.  Has  the  Stage  a  Moral  Tendency? 83 

7.  Which  was  the  greater  Poet,  Shakespeare  or  Milton  ?  99 

8.  Which  has  done  thtf  greater  Service  to  Mankind, 

the  Printing  Press  or  the  Steam  Engine  ? 11.5 

9.  Whic^^  does  the  most  to  make  the  Orator — Knowl- 

edge, Nature,  or  Art  ? 130 

PART  II. 

OUTLINES  OF  DEBATES. 

SUBJECTS. 

1.  Which  does  the  greater  Injury  to  Society,  the  Miser 

orthe  Spendthrift? 145 

2.  Is  universal  Peace  probable  ?  A 147 

3.  Which  was  the  greatest  Man,  Bonaparte,  Watt,  or 

Howard? 148 

4.  Which  are  of  the  greater  Importance  in  Education, 

the  Classics  or  Mathematics  ? 150 

5.  Are  Brutes  endowed  with  Reason  ? 152 

6.  Is  Dueling  justifiable  ? 154 

7.  Is  Modern  equal  to  Ancient  Oratory  ? 156 

8.  Is  the  Character  of  Napoleon  Bonaparte  to  be  ad- 

mired?    158 

9.  Was  the  Execution  of  Charles  the  First  justifiable  ?  161 
10.     Which  is  the  more  happy,  a  Barbarous,  or  a  Civil- 
ized Man? 163 

PART  III. 

Questions  for  Discussion 166—192 


RULES  OF  DEBATE. 


At  the  first  general  meeting  of  members  for  tlie  estab- 
lishment of  the  class,  the  title  of  the  society  should  be 
resolved  upon,  the  laws  of  debate  agreed  to,  and  a  secre- 
tary elected,  whose  duty  it  will  be  to  keep  mhiutes  of  the 
proceedings. 

General  meetings  should  be  heJd  half-yearly,  to  con- 
firm, amend,  or  extend  the  laws,  and  to  elect  or  re-elect 
the  secretary. 

At  tlie  ordinary  meetings,  after  the  election  of  the 
chairman  from  among  the  members,  the  secretary 
should  read  the  minutes  of  the  previous  meeting.  When 
they  have  been  confirmed,  the  chairman  should  call 
upon  tlie  gentleman  who  has  undertaken  to  open  the  de- 
bate, to  address  the  meeting*.        m 

It  is  then  usual  for  the  seconder  to  speak ;  and  after- 
ward the  othei;  members,  at  their  pleasure.  When  all 
who  wish  to  speak  have  spoken,  the  chairman  calls  on 
the  opener  for  his  reply ;  after  which  the  question  is  put 
from  the  chair,  and  decided  by  a  show  of  hands.  This 
done,  the  question  to  be  discussed  at  the  next  meeting  is 
proposed,  seconded,  and  agreed  upon.  The  class  then 
adjourns. 

No  member  is  allowed  to  speak  twice,  except  the  opener 
in  reply,  or  any  one  in  explanation. 

The  opener  has  no  right  to  introduce  fresh  arguments 
into  his  reply;  he  can  only  refer  to  what  has  gone  before. 

The  chairman  cannot  speak  unless  he  quits  the  chair; 


lOt  '      'RtJLES   OF   DEBATE. 

lip^/c^ti  ;he,  voi«  unless  the  numbers  be  equal :  in  which 
case  he  gives  the  casting  vote. 

It  will  be  found  advisable  to  limit  each  speaker  to  a 
particular  time,  say  ten  minutes ;  the  opener  may  be  al- 
lowed fifteen  minutes. 

If  all  who  wish  to  speak  cannot  do  so  on  one  occasion, 
the  debate  may  be  adjourned  until  the  next  meeting ;  the 
mover  of  the  adjournment,  or  the  seconder,  in  the 
mover's  absence,  reopening  the  discussion. 


PART  L-COMPLETE  DEBATES. 


QUESTION  I. 

Is  •THE  Protection  afforded  to  American  Industry 

BY    duties  on  imports  BENEFICIAL  TO  THE  AMERICAN 
PEOPLE  ? 

First  Speaker.— Mr.  Chairman :  The  question  which 
forms  the  subject  of  discussion  this  evening  is  one  which 
has  occupied  the  attention  and  exercised  the  judgment  of 
the  clearest  and  most  practical  minds,  and  has  served  also 
to  place  before  the  world  tjie  visionary  speculations  of 
advanced  theorists;  but  it  has  never  been  doubted  that 
the  effects  of  a  system,  so  advantageous  for  revenue  pur- 
poses as  that  of  duties  upon  imports,  has  necessarily  been 
beneficial  to  home  manufactures;  and,  as  it  is  a  fact  be- 
yond  dispute  that  a  very  large  amount  of  the  wealth  of 
America  is  invested  in  its  manufacturing  interests,  it  fol- 
lows that  what  benefits  thai  must  benefit  the  people  at 
large. 

There  is  an  immense  amount  of  solid  capital  in  America 
always  seeking  remunerative  investment;  and  there  is  no 
way  in  wliich  it  can  be  invested  that  results  in  so  great  a 
circulation  of  money  as  when  expended  in  the  erection 
of  factories,  in  the  purchase  of  material,  and  in  the 
wages  for  labor  which  alone  can  bring  the  raw  material 
into  the  shape  and  form  necessary  for  public  use,  with 
sufficient  profit  on  the  outlay  to  keep  the  invested  capital 
from  being  withdrawn. 


12        'i  .'pROTEOtW^I.TP' AMERICAN  INDUSTRY. 

^\^e  hAiW^i  JP^4^!  p/:  admijti^yig  foreign  manufactures 
withbul  duty  Avould  be  to  reduce  the  wages  paid  for 
labor.  Nothing  can  be  saved  in  the  cost  of  tlie  maternal, 
so  the  reduction  in  price  of  the  manufactured  goods 
necessary  to  compete  with  those  imported,  must  fall  on 
the  workingman.  Fair  wages  mean  prosperity;  starva- 
tion wages  bring  ruin  on  the  toilers,  and  reduce  the 
means  for  the  circulation  of  money ;  all  trades  feel  it, 
and  the  public  suffers. 

I  cannot  see,  Mr.  Chairman,  how  any  person  can  re- 
fute such  arguments  as  these.  The  facts  are  brought  rig-ht 
home  to  us ;  no  man  who  has  fairly  earned  a  dollar,  would 
be  willing  to  do  the  same  work  for  fifty  cents.  And  that 
is  what  every  workingman  in  America  would  be  com- 
pelled to  do  if  we  removed  the  auties  on  imports. 

Second  Speaker. — Mr.  Chairman:  I  cannot  but  ad- 
mire the  earnestness  of  the  gentleman  who  has  just  talcen 
his  seat,  and  give  him  due  credit  for  speaking  out  his  ap- 
parently honest  convictions.^  But  I  think,  sir,  that  how- 
ever well  his  premises  may  be  taken,  he  has  reached  con- 
clusions which  are  not  yet  warranted  by  any  practical 
facts.  He  affirms  that  Free  Trade  necessarily  means  re- 
duction of  wages,  and  as  a  probable,  though  not  neces- 
sary, consequence,  rack  and  ruin  to  the  public  at  large. 
I  am  not  prepared  to  affirm  that  such  might  not  be  the 
case;  but,  as  we  have  not  yet  tried  by  experiment  or 
practice  what  the  results  would  actually  be,  our  ports 
never  having  been  open  to  Free  Trade,  we  cannot  form 
any  positive  judgment  in  the  matter.  If  the  greatest 
evil  which  can  befall  America  would  be  the  reduction  of 
the  wages  for  labor,  we  certainly  have  reached  that,  not 
by  Free  Trade,  but  by  a  very  different  channel  f  and  that 
is,  the  adoption  of  machinery.  A  machine  is  now  used 
to  produce  with  unerring  accuracy  and  marvelous  rapid- 
ity what  formerly  was  done  by  skilled  artisans.  The 
skilled  workman  is  rapidl}^  becoming  a  thing  of  the  past ; 


PROTECTION  TO  AMERICAN  INDUSTRY.  13 

a  machine,  doing  the  work  of  ten  or  twenty  men — men 
who  had  to  learn  their  trade  and  become  proficients,  and 
paid  the  price  of  skilled  workmanship — is  now  7nin  by  a 
factory  hand,  whose  knowledge  can  often  be  learned  in 
a  week,  and  is  paid  at  factory  rates.  Nay,  more ;  the  ma- 
chines soon  fill  all  tlie  demands  of  the  market,  and  the 
" hand"  at  factory  wages  has  to  stop  work. 

If  ruin  is  to  reach  us  in  that  way  by  the  imaginary  and 
untried  results  of  Free  Trade,  I  affirm  that  it  has  reached 
us  already  by  machinery,  and  we  are  not  ruined  yet — 
even  with  workmen's  wages  at  the  lowest  point,  and  that 
not  by  Free  Trade.  .  * 

I  hope,  sir,  that  some  more  real,  tangible  argument 
will  be  adduced  than  low  wages,  for  the  credit  of  the 
Protectionist  party ! ' 

Third  Speaker.— One  would  think,  Mr.  ChairnSan, 
from  what  hast  just  been  said,  that  the  prosperity  or  ruin 
of  the  entire  public  was  hanging  from  the  single  slender 
thread  of  artisans'  wages.  No  doubt  that  the  well-being 
of  any  portion  of  the  body  politic  conduces  in  a  general 
way  to  the  public  weal ;  but  the  people  collectively  can- 
not l)e  expected  to  be  put  to  mconvenience  in  order  to 
further  the  interests  of  a  minority.  This  question  of 
wages  is  altogether  foreign  to  the  subject  under  discus- 
sion :  the  amount  a  workman  can  obtain  for  his  work  is 
governed  by  the  immutable  laws  of  supply  and  demand. 
Wages  are  reduced  simply  because  the  employer  knows 
that  if  his  workman  refuses  to  accept  less,  there  are  ten 
others  ready  to  jump  at  it;  for  want  of  apprentice  laws, 
workmen  multiply  until  they  become  a  drug  in  the  mar- 
ket.    I  want  to  hear  no  more  on  the  subject  of  wages. 

Outside  of  our  natural  products — petroleum,  gold,  sil- 
ver, iron  and  others,  which  represent  wealth  to  a  great 
extent  ready-made  —  the  two  paramount  interests  of 
America  are  manufactures  and  agriculture;  and,  al- 
though in  some  points  these  may  clash  somewhat  in  their 


^> 


14  PROTECTION  TO  AMERICAN  INDUSTRY. 

aims  and  tendencies,  these  two  are  so  mutually  depend- 
ent that  any  blow  to  the  one  is  a  sore  affliction  to  the 
other.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  a  great  portion  of  the 
manufactured  articles  that  we  need,  and  must  have,  can 
be  produced  in  foreign  countries  and  delivered  at  Ameri- 
can ports  for  less  than  we  can  make  them  here.  What- 
ever may  be  the  cause,  the  fact  is  there.  We  cannot  and 
do  not  want  to  compete  with  them,  and  it  would  be  a 
sorry  plight  indeed.if  America  could  not  supply  her  citi- 
zens with  all  they  need.  Yet  such  must  be  the  issue  if 
Free  Traders  should  have  their  way.  No,  sir,  we  cannot  , 
afford  to  crush  i^iHerican  manufactures.  If  there  be  no 
other  way  of  preserving  them — and  I  fail  to  discover 
any — than  that  of  a  protective  tariff,  let  us  by  all  means 
have  such  protection. 

Fourth  Speaker. — I  have  listened,  Mr.  Chairman, 
with  close  attention  to  the  remarks  and  arguments  that 
have  been  already  submitted  in  favor  of  Protection. 
.  My  predecessor  on  the  negative  side,  the  second 
speaker,  failed  to  touch  the  question  at  issue.  His  re- 
marks were  simply  an  attempt,  and  to  my  mind,  a  suc- 
cessful one,  to  refute  certain  conclusions  which  thelRrst 
speaker  strove  to  establish.  The  opposing  principles  of 
Protection  and  Free  Trade  are  so  hedged  in  with  intrica- 
cies, and  so  rarely  discussed  from  a  comprehensive  and 
public  point  of  view,  that  I  approach  them  with  feelings 
of  extreme  diffidence;  not,  however,  arising  from  any 
want  of  firm  and  fixed  opinions,  but  from  the  fear  that  I 
lack  the  ability  to  do  those  opinions  justice.  When  the 
f ramers  of  our  Constitution  and  the  founders  of  our  gov- 
ernment brought  the  highest  patriotism  and  clearest 
judgment  to  bear  on  the  future  welfare  of  their  country, 
their  paramount  object  was  the  good  of  the  people.  They 
wisely  determined  that  no  direct  taxation  would  be  ap- 
proved, if  indeed  tolerated,  and  the  only  source  of  reve- 
nue to  defray  the  necessary  expenses  of  government  was 


PROTECTION  TO  AMERICAN  INDUSTRY.  15 

in  establishing  a  duty  on  imports.  Their  tariff  was  a  com- 
pulsory one — a  tariff  for  revenue.  Whatever  protection 
such  tariff  would  extend  to  home  industry  was  an  inci- 
dental consequence— not  a  prime  motive.  The  saddle  of 
taxation  was  constructed  to  fit  the  public  horse,  and  the 
horse  liked  it;  the  saddle  protected  it  and  did  not  chafe. 

In  those  days  the  Hst  of  imported  goods  was  compara- 
tively limited.  By  and  by  the  American  market  offered 
tempting  adva.ntages  to  foreign  commerce;  the  list 
swelled  immensely,  and  every  new  line  of  business  cov- 
ered by  imported  goods  felt  the  benefit  of  being  protected. 
It  certainly  in  those  earlier  days,  apart  from  the  increased 
revenue  derived  from  import  duties,  did  foster  home  in- 
dustry, and  above  all,  checked  the  outward  flow  of 
money.  But  I  claim  that  things  are  noiv  greatly  changed. 
The  outward  flow  is  a  necessity.  We  produce  gold,  sil- 
ver, and  other  necessary  valuable  products,  for  which  we 
require  a  foreign  market,  and  which  must  in  a  measure 
remain  locked  up  in  America  unless  our  importations  are 
large  enough  to  absorb  them. 

Our  glorious  Constitution  guarantees  us  life,  liberty, 
and  the  pursuit  of  happiness;  and  this  word  "liberty"  is  , 
a  comprehensive  one. 

I  affirm  that  it  should  guarantee  the  right  to  every  in- 
dividual of  the  great  American  public  to  get  the  most 
and  the  best  for  his  money;  not  to  be  compelled  to  re- 
ceive an  American  article  if  he  can  get  as  good  or  better 
from  Europe  for  less  money.  The  question  of  benefit  to 
a  few  manufacturers,  or  even  to  the  large  body  of  the 
working  classes,  sinks  into  almost  insignificance  when 
brought  in  antagonism  to  the  benefit  of  the  entire  popu- 
lation. 

Whenever  any  effort  is  made  to  reduce  the  tariff  on 
any  article,  every  man  who  makes  it  here  is  up  in  arms 
against  it.  No  !  we  cannot  stand  it  !  it  would  ruin  us  ! 
Take  it  off  any  thing  else  but  not  off  our  line  of  goods. 


16  PROTECTION  TO  AMERICAN  INDUSTRY. 

Thus  each  wants  the  public  horse  to  be  built  up  to  suit 
his  private  particular  saddle  ! 

No,  sir  ;  I,  for  one,  protest  against  any  thing  that 
trammels  our  freedom — I  object  to  any  system  which 
compels  me  to  pay  a  higher  price  for  too  often  an  in- 
ferior article  ;  and  this  is  what  I  must  do  under  the 
workings  of  a  protective  tariff. 

Fifth  Speaker. — Tlie  remarks  of  the  preceding 
speaker,  Mr.  Chairman,  would  possibly  carry  some 
degree  of  conviction  to  the  superficial  listener  ;  but  J  do 
not  think  that  they  would  have  much  weight  with  any 
one  who  had  devoted  even  only  a  small  amount  of  time 
and  patience  to  a  fair  investigation  of  the  subject. 

He  admits  the  wisdom  of  our  forefathers  in  inaugurat- 
ing a  system,  which,  even  if  it  was  as  compulsory  as  he 
assumes,  he  does  not  attempt  to  deny  did  aid  and  foster 
home  industry  ;  and  I  cannot  see  that  in  this  respect  the 
times  have  undergone  as  radical  a  change  as  he  seems  to 
infer.  I  think  that  it  is  one  of  the  fundamental  princi- 
ples of  political  economy  that  a  balance  of  trade  in  favor 
of  a  country  is  one  of  the  conditions  of  its  prosperity. 
.The  ultimate  aim  and  object  of  all  industry  and  com- 
merce is  money,  and  money  must  flow  toward  that 
country  whose  exports  exceed  its  imports.  For  many 
years  France  had  exported  immensely,  and  far  in  excess 
of  its  imports  ;  and  mark  the  results.  When  the  war 
with  Germany  ended,  France  was  called  upon  to  pay  an 
enormous  indemnity — all  that  the  German  government 
thought  she  could  bear,  and  how  was  it  paid  ?  not  by  a 
syndicate  of  capitalists  working  for  a  percentage,  but 
from  the  savings  of  her  working  classes.  What  better 
evidence  of  prosperity  than  that  ?  What  more  thorough 
refutation  of  the  term  "  pauper  labor"  so  often  applied 
to  the  European  workman  ? 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  cannot  see  any  other  means  for 
inducing  a  favorable  balance  of  trade,  or  for  checkino^  an 


PROTECTION  TO  AMERICAN  INDUSTRY.  17 

adverse  balance,  than  by  adjusting  a  tariff  to  fulfill 
those  conditions,  and  thus  tax  not  our  home  industry, 
but  the  industry  of  other  nations,  to  our  own  financial 
and  industrial  gain.  There  is  no  lack  of  opportunity  to 
invite,  or  of  enterprise  to  invest  capital  in  America,  and 
nothing  can  surpass,  as  an  element  of  prosperity,  a  state 
of  things  where  there  is  plenty  of  -money  and  rapid  cir- 
culation of  it.  If  the  advocates  of  Free  Trade  can  ac- 
complish that^  I  will  admit  the  superiority  of  their 
theories,  but  all  the  evidence,  all  the  practical  facts  go  to 
establish  the  opposite  theory,  the  advisability,  nay  more 
— the  necessity  for  a  protective  tariff. 

Sixth  Speaker. — Mr.  Chairman:  The  question  under 
discussion  should,  I  think,  have  been  confined  to  Ameri- 
can experiences  and  home  requirements  ;  but,  since  the 
preceding  speaker  has  seen  fit  to  cross  the  broad  Atlantic 
for  the  support  of  his  arguments,  I  can  fairly  claim  the 
same  latitude  and  privilege. 

I  wish  that  I  had  been  present  at  that  historical  ban- 
quet where  the  hitherto  ardent  protectionist,  Sir  Eobert 
Peel,  was  so  suddenly  and  completely  converted  to  the 
principles  of  Free  Trade.  I  wish  I  had  been  there  to 
hear  the  arguments — convincing,  indeed,  they  must  have 
been — by  which  so  radical  a  change  was  worked  in  the 
views  and  opinions  of  a  master  mind  like  his. 

It  may  fairly  be  said  that  from  that  time.  Free  Trade 
principles  steadily  gained  ground,  and  to-day  England 
furnishes  the  nearest  approach  to  Free  Trade  that  has 
yet  been  reached  by  any  commercial  nation.  And  yet, 
England  never  had  so  much  surplus  capital — so  great 
that  it  seeks  investment  in  every  corner  of  the  globe. 
England,  notwithstanding  the  heavy  burden  of  taxation 
and  debt  under  w^liich  she  fairly  groans,  is  as  prosperous 
in  the  workings  of  her  Fre3  Trade  principles  as  she  was 
when  strongly  protected  through  her  Custom  Houses. 
The  evils  consequent  on  over  production  have  worked 


18  PROTECTION  TO  AMERICAN  INDUSTRY. 

the  same  harm  there  as  they  have  here,  but  that  is  in  no 
way  traceable  to  any  Free  Trade  sources. 

The  question  of  Free  Trade  has  never  had  a  fair  show- 
ing in  America.  The  tariff  has  had  its  opponents  at  dif- 
ferent times,  but  the  only  measures  attempted  have  been 
in  the  interests  of  the  few.  The  machinery  requisite  for 
the  collection  of  customs  duties,  involves  so  much  politi- 
cal patronage  that  one  party  dare  not  and  the  other  is 
afraid  to  weaken  the  power  of  patronage — possessed  by 
the  one  and  struggled  for  by  the  other. 
-  There  has  been  a  strong  popular  pressure  in  favor  of 
abolishing  the  war  taxes  of  the  Internal  Revenue  system, 
with  all  its  stupendous  political  patronage  ;  but  both 
parties  strive  to  lead  the  public  opinion  away  from  that 
by  ventilating  the  tariff.  It  is  "tariff  for  protection" 
on  the  one  hand,  and  "tariff  for  revenue  only  "  on  the 
other,  but  it  is  tariff  all  the  time. 

So  long  as  patronage  is  permitted  to  be  the  mainstay 
and  sheet-anchor  of  all  political  parties  alike,  the  work- 
ings of  Free  Trade,  even  on  an  experimental  basis,  will 
never  be  permitted  to  come  to  a  fair  test. 

I  fully  indorse  the  maxim  that  has  already  been  laid 
down,  that  every  one  should  be  able  to  get  the  best  for 
the  least  money  ;  and  I  denounce  as  inimical  to  the  body 
politic  any  system  which  deprives  a  man  of  that  right, 
and  compels  him  to  pay  an  artificial  protective  price  for 
any  thing  he  needs.  I  believe  in  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciple upon  which  our  liberties  are  and  ought  to  be  built 
— "  The  greatest  good  to  tlie  greatest  number." 

First  Speaker. — Mr.  Chairman  :  You  have  placed 
upon  mc  the  difficult  duty  of  offering  a  few  words  in 
reply.  I  must  confess  that  some  of  the  points  on  the 
affirmative  side  of  this  question  have  been  well  taken, 
and  that  they  have  been  ingeniously  if  not  fairly  met  by 
those  who  liave  sj^oken  on  the  negative  side.  Eut,  sir,  I 
feel  impressed  with  the  fact  that  the  question  at  issue  is 


THE  WARRIOR,   THE  STATESMAN  OR  THE  POET.        1& 

one  which  cannot  fully  be  considered  in  all  its  bearings 
in  the  short  time  which  wo  have  devoted  to  its  discus- 
sion. The  remarks  of  the  s]Deak  rs  on  both  sides  are  full 
of  interest  and  reflect  credit  n  them  ;  but,  sir,  the 
theory  and  practice  of  Protection  have  filled  volumes, 
and  elicited  the  utmost  diversity  of  opinion  from  master 
minds.  We  have  seen  the  workings  of  protective  sys- 
tems, and  we  may  possibly  have  connected  in  our  minds 
with  that  line  of  policy  effects  which  should  have  been 
traced  to  other  causes  ;  we  have  had  scant  opportunity — 
almost  none — of  trying  the  results  of  Free  Trade,  and 
we  may  argue,  theorize,  and  make  our  deductions  for 
years  to  come,  witHout  reaching  any  actual  and  practical 
solution  of  the  question. 

With  a  thankful  appreciation  of  the  attention  you 
have  given,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  the  arguments  adduced 
on  both  sides,  and  with  the  greatest  deference  to  your 
discrimination  and  judgment,  I  must  confess  that  you 
will  find  it  a  difficult  task  in  awarding  the  palm  to  either 
of  the  contending  parties  in  this  debate. 


QUESTION  II. 

Which  is  of  the  greatest  benefit  to  his  country— 
THE  Warrior,  the  Statesman  or  the  Poet  ? 

First  Speaker. — Sir  :  The  question  which  I  have  un- 
dertaken to  open,  is,  I  think,  one  of  considerable  impor- 
tance and  interest.  We  are  to  be  called  upon  to  say.  Which 
is  of  the  greatest  benefit  to  his  country,  the  Warrior,  the 
Statesman,  or  the  Poet  ?  The  Warrior  is  the  man  who 
directs  the  physical  strength  of  his  nation  :  the  man  who 
fights  its  battles,  repulses  its  invaders,  holds  discontent 
in  check,  and  defends  its  rights  at  the  hazard  of  his  life : 
the  Statesman  is  the  man  who  governs  the  mental  force 


20       THE  WARRIOR,   THE  STATESMAN  OR  THE  POET. 

of  his  nation  ;  who  by  his  keen  intellect  devises  laws, 
avoids  evils,  secures  social  order,  and  controls  the  wild 
elements  of  popular  feeling  ;  and  the  Poet  is  the  man 
who  guides  the  moral  power  of  his  nation  :  who  teaches 
it  truth,  arouses  it  to  goodness,  and  impresses  it  with 
beauty.  Yes,  it  is  important  to  judge  between  these 
three  :  to  know  which  is  the  noblest  kind  of  power  ;  to 
discern  the  highest  sort  of  greatness.  For  our  conduct 
depends  in  no  small  measure  upon  our  opinions,  and  ac- 
cording to  the  idea  that  we  form  of  greatness  shall  we 
endeavor  to  be  great.  Moreover,  the  question  is  a  difTi- 
cult  one.  Much  thought  is  necessary  to  elucidate  it,  and 
much  insight  to  determine  it  with  tnfth.  It  is  like  judg- 
ing between  the  different  members  of  the  body.  For  the 
Warrior  is  the  arm,  the  Statesman  the  head,  and  the 
Poet  the  heart,  of  the  community  :  and  just  as  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  choose  between  the  members  of  the  body  physical, 
so  is  it  difficult  to  choose  between  the  members  of  the 
body  politic.  I  shall  wait,  sir,  to  hear  the  sentiments  of 
others  before  I  decide,  and  for  the  present  shall  content 
myself  with  this  simple  introduction  of  the  question, 
trusting  that  it  will  receive  that  full  discussion  which  it 
merits. 

Second  Speaker. — Sir:  I  quite  agree  with  the  opener 
that  he  has  presented  us  with  a  difficult  subject  for  de- 
bate. And,  I  think,  with  all  submission,  that  he  has 
increased  the  difficulty  by  the  selection  of  these  particular 
characters.  For  I  cannot  believe  that  they  are  the  best 
representatives  that  he  could  have  found,  of  the  different 
kinds  of  force  between  which  he  calls  on  us  to  choose. 
Granting 'that  the  Soldier  fairly  represents  the  physical 
strength  of  his  nation,  might  we  not  say  with  justice 
that  the  Philosopher  is  a  completer  type  of  its  mind  than 
the  Statesman,  and  the  Divine  a  fairer  emblem  of  its 
moral  power  than  the  Poet  ?  To  make  the  question  more 
debatable,  however,    without    materially    altering    the 


THE  WARRIOR,    THE  STATESMAN  OR  THE  POET.        21 

opener's  words,  would  it  not  be  better  to  ask — Which  is 
of  the  greatest  benefit  to  his  country,  the  Warrior,  the 
wise  Statesmfin,  or  the  Christian  Poet  ? 

Opener. — Sn^  :  I  have  no  objection  at  all  to  the  ques- 
tion being"  understood  as  the  last  speaker  wishes  :  though 
I  think  the  distinction  he  has  drawn  is  hardly  necessary. 
In  a  certain  sense  the  Statesman  is  the  Philosopher,  and 
the  Poet  is  the  Divine.  The  Statesman  represents  Phil- 
osophy, inasmuch  as  he  sways  by  mental  strength  ;  and 
the  Poet  represents  the  Divine,  inasmuch  as  he  is  an 
apostle  of  eternal  truth,  and  a  preacher  to  the  soul.  I 
avoided  the  terms  " Philosopher "  and  '* Divine"  in  my 
question,  because  I  know  that  the  words  are  very  often 
misused,  and  because  I  feared  that  instead  of  a  calm  and 
temperate  debate,  we  should  be  led  into  a  wide  field  of 
disputed  science  and  theological  controversy.  I  think, 
sir,  that  after  this  explanation  the  discussion  may  be 
safely  allowed  to  flow  in  the  channel  which  I  originally 
opened  for  it. 

Second  Speaker  (in  continuation). — I  am  quite  satis- 
fied, sir,  with  the  remarks  of  my  friend,  and  shall  pro- 
ceed to  consider  the  question  as  he  proposed  it.  We  are 
to  judge,  then,  between  the  Warrior,  the  Statesman,  and 
the  Poet :  and  the  result  of  my  brief  reflections  leads  me 
to  speak  in  favor  of  the  first.  I  do  not  mean  to  deny  the 
great  value  of  the  Statesman,  nor  do  I  forget  the  import- 
ant mission  of  the  Poet  ;  but  it  certainly  seems  to  me 
that  the  Warrior  does  more  for  his  nation  than  either  of 
the  others.  To  him  we  owe  the  National  safety,  and  that 
sense  of  security  which  develops  all  our  best  wisdom  and 
energy.  The  fame  of  his  valor,  and  the  prestige  that 
attaches  to  his  name,  preserve  his  country  from  attack  ; 
or  if  it  is  attacked,  tend  to  secure  for  it  victory  and  honor. 
By  a  beautiful  arrangement  of  Providence,  the  Warrior 
is  thus  made  the  harbinger  of  peace.  Of  the  supreme 
value  of  peace,  I  need  scarcely  speak.     Under  its  benefi- 


22       THE  WARRIOR,   THE  STATESMAN  OR  THE  POET. 

cent  smile,  commerce  tlirives,  science  advances,  the  arts 
flourish,  civihzation  spreads  improvement,  and  social^ 
happiness  is  secured  to  man.  The  Warrior  !s  a  practical 
lesson  of  heroism,  too,  to  his  nation.  By  fixing  men's 
admn*ation  on  his  courage,  he  leads  them  to  imitate  it. 
One  hero  makes  many.  There  never  was  a  dauntless 
Warrior  yet  who  did  not  raise  a  dauntless  army.  And 
this  dauntlessness  is  not  the  mere  passionate  excitement 
of  a  moment,  but  becomes  a  principle,  influencing  the 
whole  conduct.  It  is  not  confined  to  the  field  of  battle. 
It  teaches  a  man  to  endure  calamity,  to  despise  slander, 
to  resist  oppression,  and  to  defend  insulted  right.  Sir,  I 
honor  the  Hero- Warrior  much.  He  seems  to  me  not 
only  a  personification  of  bravery,  but  a  creator  of  it  ;  he 
plucks  the  sweet  flower  of  peace  from  the  sharp  nettle 
war  ;  and  he  is  a  constant  incarnation  of  the  great  and  use" 
f  ul  truth  that  exertion  overcomes  difficulty,  and  courage 
insures  conquest.  With  these  remarks  I  resume  my  seat. 
Third  Speaker. — Sir  :  The  opener  of  this  debate  said 
with  some  aptness  that  the  Warrior  was  the  arm,  the 
Statesman  the  head,  and  the  Poet  the  heart,  of  the  body 
politic.  I  like  the  simile,  and  adopt  it.  But  does  it  not 
tend  to  fix  our  verdict  absolutely  on  the  Statesman  ?  Is 
not  the  head  the  most  important  part  of  the  living  man  ? 
Compare  it  with  the  arm  !  The  arm  only  acts  ;  the  head 
thinks.  And  is  not  thought  (the  originator)  greater  than 
action  (the  product)  ?  The  thinker  is  always  greater  and 
nobler  than  the  doer.  The  arm  is  dependent  on  the 
head  ;  the  head  is  not  dependent  on  the  arm.  Take 
away  the  arm,  the  head  may  be  sound  and  useful  still : 
but  take  away  the  head,  and  what  good  will  the  arm  be 
then  ?  In  like  manner  you  may  remove  the  Warrior, 
and  the  state  will  flourish  notwithstanding  ;  while  with- 
out the  Statesman,  it  will  sink  into  decay  and  ruin. 
The  Statesman  needs  the  Warrior  but  rarely  ;  the 
Warrior  always  needs  the  Statesman.    Give  an  army 


THE  WARRIOR,    THE  STATESMAN  OR  THE  POET.        23 

to  a  general  without  instructions  from  the  state,  and 
unless  that  general  be  a  statesman  too,  he  will 
embroil  where  he  ought  to  pacify,  punish  where  he  ought 
to  conciliate,  and  rouse  revenge  instead  of  producing 
submission.  We  have  been  told  tliat  a  great  Warrior  is 
a  perpetual  type  of  heroism  to  his  fellow-men ;  but  let 
me  put  this  question :  Suppose  that  great  Warrior  should 
be  (as  great  warriors  have  generally  been)  cruel,  inhu- 
man, bloodthirsty,  and  tyrannical,  is  he  then  a  type  fit 
to  follow  ?  Is  such  a  man  worthy  of  imitation — valuable 
in  the  state  ?  Or,  is  he  not  rather  the  most  dangerous 
member  of  the  community?  a  poison  seed  cast  into  the 
plowed  heart  of  society,  bearing  evil  fruit  a  thousand- 
fold ?  Compared  with  the  Statesman  and  the  Poet,  the 
Warrior  appears  to  me  the  least  estimable  of  the  three. 
I  have  now,  then,  only  to  decide  between  the  other  two. 
I  own  that  I  incline  toward  the  Statesman.  I  look  upon 
the  great  Statesman  of  a  nation  as  the  head  of  its  thought 
and  philosophy,  the  guide  of  its  energies,  the  center  and 
representative  of  its  emotions,  passions,  and  ambitions. 
I  call  to  mind  what  our  own  great  Statesmen  have  done 
for  this  country,  how  they  have  led  it  through  perils 
of  war  and  revolution  that  seemed  overw^helming,  and 
in  defiance  of  all,  have  established  its  prosperity  upon  a 
rock:  and,  consequently,  1  feel  that  the  man  who  can  do 
this  deserves  the  highest  esteem  that  can  be  awarded  to 
human  exertion.     For  the  Statesman,  then,  I  vote. 

Fourth  Speaker. — Sir:  If  the  palm  of  merit  is  to  be 
accorded  to  that  one  of  the  three  men  before  us  who  ac- 
complishes the  greatest  palpable  and  immediate  good  to 
the  community  of  which  he  is  a  member,  I  should  un- 
hesitatingly place  it  on  the  brow  of  the  Statesman.  He 
is  the  pilot  who,  seeing  clearly  and  estimating  carefully 
the  dangers  that  surround  the  vessel,  steers  it  safely 
through  them  all  ;  and  if  we  can  understand  the  value 
of  such  a  helmsman  in  a  ship  at  sea,  we  can  readily  con- 


24       THE  WARRIOR,    THE  STATESMAN  OR  THE  POET, 

ceive  the  important  service  that  the  pilot  of  the  state  per- 
forms for  the  community  he  guides.  His  value  is  felt 
and  seen,  too:  the  quiet,  the  contentment,  the  harmony 
existing  in  the  country  are  proofs  of  his  ability  and 
power,  which  speak  to  all  at  once,  and  at  once  challenge 
admiration. 

But  I  think  we  should  not  judge  thus  superficially. 
We  must  look  deeper  than  this,  if  we  would  reach  the 
truth.  It  is  not  the  most  evident  merit  that  is  always 
the  worthiest.  Quiet  influences  often  do  more  than  noisy 
ones.  The  deepest  rivers  always  flow  the  most  silently. 
And  looking  beneath  the  surface  of  the  question  now  in 
hand,  I  seem  to  think  that  the  Poet  does  more  true  and 
valuable  service  to  the  community  than  either  the  Sol- 
dier or  the  Statesman.  I  do  not  speak  of  tli^  mere 
rhymer,  of  course  :  I  mean  the  real  and  great  Poet,  the 
earnest  apostle  of  Truth  and  Beauty;  the  man  who, 
speaking  to  the  divine  part  of  humanity,  lifts  it  up  above 
its  mean  and  groveling  passions,  and  allies  it  to  what  is 
pure  and  noble.  The  Poet's  office  is  one  of  the  highest 
that  I  know.  It  is  to  purify  the  heart,  to  elevate  the  moral 
sense,  to  calm  the  perturbed  spirit  when  agitated  by  its 
earthly  trials,  to  refresh  the  tired  soul  with  draughts 
from  the  spring  of  Eternal  Beauty.  The  Poet  is  a  voice 
ever  speaking  to  our  immortal  part,  ever  telling  us  that 
earth  is  not  our  final  home.  Were  there  no  such  voic  c 
to  speak  to  us,  our  souls' would  become  stupefied  and 
lost  in  the  perplexing  cares  and  sordid  ambitions  of  the 
world;  but  as  it  is,  the  Poet  continually  reminds  us  of 
our  great  and  lofty  destiny,  and  so  leads  us  more  nobly 
to  fulfill  it.  We  have  a  threefold  life ;  a  physical,  a  men- 
tal, and  a  moral  life;  of  these  the  last  only  is  immortal. 
The  Warrior  leads  our  physical  part,  the  Statesman  our 
mental  part,  and  the  Poet  our  immortal  part.  For  this 
reason  I  hold  that  the  Poet's  is  the  highest  mission  of  the 
three/ 


THE  WARRIOR,   THE  STATESMAN  OR  THE  POET.        25 

Fifth  Speaker. — Sir:  With  much  that  was  admirable 
and  eloquent  in  the  speech  of  the  gentleman  who  has  just 
resumed  his  seat,  I  think  there  was  also  much  that  was 
visionary  and  unproved.  The  Poet  should  do  all  that 
our  friend  has  described,  but  does  he?  I  submit  that  this 
is  yet  unshown.  Will  the  gentleman  maintain  that  all 
gr^at  Poets  have  purified  the  world,  elevated  the  moral 
sense,  and  kept  chaste  the  human  heart?  Are  there  no 
licentious  Poets?  no  skeptical  Poets?  no  misanthropic 
Poets?  What  was  Ovid?  What  was  Shelley?  What 
was  Byron?  Will  our  friend  pretend  to  say  that  Ovid  is 
an  apostle  of  morality — that  Shelley  is  a  teacher  of  holi- 
ness— that  Byron  is  a  promulgator  of  philanthropy?  Sir, 
if  the  Poet's  office  is  to  teach  what  these  men  teach,  I 
must  sajfc.that  I  do  not  believe  it  to  be  beneficiar  to  man- 
kind. It  seems  to  me  that  at  best  the  good  which  the  Poet 
does  is  visionary.  We  do  not  see,  we  cannot  trace,  his  in- 
fluence ;  and  how,  then  can  we  say  with  certainty,  that  it 
is  vast  and  good?  I  think  we  act  much  more  wisely  in 
bestowing  our  esteem  upon  men  whose  work  is  percepti- 
ble, such  as  the  Warrior  and  the  Philosopher  or  States- 
man. We  see  what  the  Soldier  does,  and  what  the  States- 
man does:  between  fhem,  therefore,  our  judgment  must 
lie.  I  give  my  vote,  without  hesitation  to  the  Warrior. 
He  may  not  perhaps  mean  the  most  good,  but  he  effects 
the  most.  He  is  the  means  of  extending  commerce  and 
civilization,  he  is  a  hero,  and  the  creator  of  heroes,  he 
introduces  order,  discipline,  and  regularity  into  the  state, 
he  is  the  fearless  protector  of  his  country's  rights,  and 
the  architect  of  its  renown.  History  seems  to  say  to  us 
that  a  country  always  flourishes  most  under  military  rule. 
Eome  proves  this :  so  does  Sparta :  so  does  our  own  coun- 
try. Eome  was  happiest  when  h^r  legions  were  the  most 
victorious ;  Greece  was  greatest  when  Miltiades  and  Leon- 
idas  led  its  arms  to  victory ;  and  England  was  mightiest 
when  Cromwell's  stroaig  arm  ruled  its  destinies.     The 


2Q       THE  WARRIOR,   THE  STATESMAN  OR  THE  POET. 

Statesman's  office  is  a  great  one,  doubtless ;  but  the  War- 
rior's seems  to  me  even  greater.  I,  for  my  part,  would 
cheerfully  give  up  our  Sewards  for  our  Decaturs.  To 
the  Warrior,  then,  I  give  my  voice. 

Sixth  Speaker.— Sir:  I  do  not  wonder  that  so  many 
of  our  speakers  have  adopted  the  cause  of  the  Warrior, 
for  there  is  something  very  attractive  in  the  character. 
Nay,  at  the  first  sight  there  is  something  even  beauti- 
ful in  it :  very  beautiful.  To  direct  a  mass  of  men  to 
the  accomplishment  of  one  settled  purpose,  to  unite  their 
various  energies  in  a  given  direction,  to  fix  one  aim  in  a 
hundred  thousand  bosoms,  to  lead  that  mass  on  to  battle, 
and  to  compass  victory  in  defiance  of  difficulty,  danger, 
and  death,  seems  a  great  and  noble  achievement:  and 
in  this  simple  aspect,  so  it  is.  The  fame,  too,  |^e  glory, 
the  universal  acclaim  and  distinction  that  await  "the 
hero  of  a  hundred  fights;"  the  trappings,  the  banners, 
the  excitement,  the  thrilling  battle-music,  the  "pride, 
pomp,  and  circumstance  of  glorious  war,"  all  of  these 
conspire  to  attract  us  toward  the  military  character,  and 
to  invest  it  with  a  high  degree  of  dignity  and  excellence. 

But  when  I  come  to  look  through  these  vestments  of  the 
Warrior,  and  behold  the  man  himself,  to  my  sight  there  is 
not  a  more  melancholy  spectacle.  I  speak  not  now  of  the 
gallant  soldier  who  fights  to  defend  his  home,  his  liberties, 
and  his  country — no !  honor  be  to  him  wherever  he  may 
be !  I  speak  of  the  soldier  by  trade,  the  soldier  of  enter- 
prise and  conquest,  the  soldier  who  fights  for  hire  or  plun- 
der. I  called  him  a  melancholy  sight ;  and  so,  indeed,  he 
is.  For  what  is  he  ?  Let  us  be  plain— a  murderer :  a 
willful  and  deliberate  murderer  before  whose  cool  atrocity 
the  secret  slaughter  of  the  frenzied  assassin  rises  into  vir- 
tue. He  goes  into  the  field  of  battle  :  deliberately  plans 
the  destruction  of  the  fellow-creatures  opposed  to  him  : 
brings  the  most  powerful  and  terrible  material  agents  of 
the  earth  to  aid  his  horrid  purpose  ;  and  is  not  satisfied 


THE  WARRIOR,   THE  STATESMAN  OR  THE  POET.        2? 

till  one  or  other,  perhaps  hoth,  of  the  contending  hosts  is 
exterminated.  I  cannot  conceive  of  murder  more  foul 
than  this,  and  I  appeal  to  all  who  hear  me  whether  this 
is  not  the  characteristic  of  the  Warrior  in  general  ?  Survey 
your  list  of  heroes  !  Hannibal — Caesar — William  the 
Conqueror — Cromwell — Bonaparte  :  are  not  the  very 
names  synonymous  •witl^cruelty,  rapine,  and  murder  ? 
Oh,  Heaven  forbid  that  after  this  we  should  ever  look 
upon  the  Warrior  as  a  benefactor  to  his  nation  !  To  me 
he  seems  its  curse,  its  plague,  its  dishonor.  I  speak 
plainly,  sir,  and  emphatically,  for  I  see  that  the  brill- 
iancy of  the  military  character  has  misled  many  here, 
as  it  has  misled  millions  in  the  Avorld,  and  I  wish,  so  far 
as  my  humble  power  will  let  me,  to  strip  it  of  its  false 
glitter,  and  expose  it  in  its  bare  and  ghastly  deformity. 

Between  the  Poet  and  the  Statesman  I  can  scarcely 
judge  ;  and  I  shall  wait  before  I  decide.  My  feelings  in- 
cline me  towards  the  Poet,  but  I  have  not  yet  heard  argu- 
ments convincing  to  sway  me  altogether  in  his  favor.  I 
rose  chiefly  to  dispel,  if  possible,  the  false  glory  that  at- 
taches to  the  Warrior,  and  if  I  have  in  the  least  suc- 
ceeded, I  shall  be  perfectly  content. 

Seventh  Speaker.  -I  think,  sir,  that  we  owe  much 
to  the  gentleman  who  has  just  sat  down  for  the  very 
proper  light  in  which  he  has  placed  the  character  of  one 
of  the  three  Individuals  between  whom  we  are  to  judge. 
We  are  now  left  to  choose,  I  fancy,  between  only  two. 
The  choice  seems  to  me  to  be  tolerably  easy.  The  States- 
man certainly  appears  to  deserve  the  higher  honor.  It 
has  been  well  said  that  he  sways  the  mind  of  his  country. 
Besides  this,  he  rules  all  the  external  circumstances  con- 
nected with  the  condition  of  the  people  ^he  regulates 
their  commerce,  their  manufactures,  their  physical  and 
.intellectual  improvement.  He  rules  by  a  noble  style  of 
force,  too — the  force  of  intellect.  By  a  stroke  of  the 
pen,  he  does  more  than  the  Warrior  can  do  in  fifty  bat- 


28       THE  WARRIOR,   THE  STATESMAN  OR  THE  POET. 

ties.  His  breath  is  stronger  than  the  roar  of  a  cannon. 
We  cannot  see  the  Statesman  to  greater  advantage  than 
by  comparing  him  with  the  Warrior.  The  Warrior 
leads  bodily  strength  :  actual,  tangible  force  ;  the  States- 
man directs  (by  invisible  power)  the  minds  of  men  :  leads 
their  reason,  holds  the  reins  of  their  obedience  and  re- 
presses discontent  by  the  simple  force  of  written  law. 
His  parchment  conquers  more  completely  than  the  other's 
sword.  His  will  binds  faster  than  the  other's  chains. 
There  is  something  almost  sublime  in  a  great  Statesman. 
He  has  the  keen,  clear  eye  to  see  a  nation's  wants,  the 
wise  judgment  to  devise  the  remedy,  the  strong  bold 
hand  to  apply  it.  Firmness,  vigilance,  justice,  modera- 
tion, mercy,  dignity,  these  are  the  qualities  of  tlie  States- 
man, and  they  are,  to  say  the  least  of  them,  noble  and 
god-like,  and  deserving  of  our  admiration.  They  have 
secured  mine,  and  for  the  Statesman  I  shall  vote. 

Eighth  Speaker. — Sir  :  A  gentleman  who  spoke  with 
particular  boldness  and  confidence  upon  this  very  dif- 
ficult subjeS,  said,  with  an  air  of  triumph  which  did  not 
sit  well  upon  him,  for  it  was  simply  the  triumph  of 
thoughtlessness — not  to  say  of  folly — this  gentleman  said, 
that  although  the  Poet  ought  to  refine  the  heart,  and 
purify  the  soul,  of  man,  he  mostly,  or  frequently  fails  to  do 
so,  and  therefore  has  but  a  visionary  and  unproved  claim 
upon  our  esteem.  Are  there  not,  said  our  triumphant- 
thoughtless  friend,  are  there  not  licentious  poets,  skeptL 
cal  poets,  misanthropic  poets  ?  Why,  doubtless  there 
are  :  and  might  I  not  ask  in  return,  are  there  no  brutal 
Warriors  ?  are  there  no  stupid  Statesmen  ?  Sir,  this  gen- 
tleman has  taken  false  Poets  as  his  sample  of  true  ones, 
and  so  has  fallen  into  deep  erroi*  in  his  judgment.  We 
are  to  decide,  I  apprehend,  between  the  great  Warrior, 
the  wise  Statesman,  and  the  true  Poet,  not  fix  upcn  bad 
specimens  of  either. 

Judging  in  this  manner,  sir,  I  presume  to  add  my 


THE  WARRIOR,    THE  STATESMAN  OR  THE  POET.         29 

feeble  testimony  to  the  superior  service  rendered  to  society 
by  the  Poet,  as  compared  with  the  two  other  great  men. 
He  seems  to  me  infinitely  higher  than  they  are.  The 
soul  is  the  domain  he  rules  ;  and  as  high  as  the  soul  is 
above  the  body  and  the  brain,  so  high  is  the  poet  above 
the  Warrior  and  the  Statesman.  The  Warrior  writes  his 
law  (of  force)  in  blood,  the  Statesman  pens  his  law  on 
moldering  parchment,  the  Poet  traces  his  upon  the 
universal  heart  of  man  ;  and  while  the  heart  of  man 
exists,  the  Poet's  laws  can  never  die,  for  they  are  laws  of 
beauty  and  of  harmony.  The  law  of  the  Warrior  dies 
with  him  ;  disperse  the  force  ho  wields,  he  passes  away 
and  is  forgotten.  The  law  of  the  Statesman  perishes 
with  the  parchment  on  which  he  writes  it  ;  laws  are 
superseded  by  laws,  as  waves  by  waves.  But  the  law  of 
the  Poet  is  imperishable  ;  it  is  a  law  for  all  time,  and 
will  last  till  time  shall  be  no  longer.  The  works  of 
Alexander  are  no  more  ;  who  can  trace  them  ?  The 
works  of  Solon  are  no  more  ;  who  acts  upon  his  laws  ? 
But  Homer,  like  a  writer  of  yesterday,  stands  fresh  and 
young  before  us,  and  shall  so  remain,  wnen  the  very 
names  of  Alexander  and  of  Solon  shall  have  faded  from 
the  memory  of  man. 

Ninth  Speaker. — I  am  grateful,  sir,  to  the  last  speaker 
for  pointing  out  to  us  that  we  are  to  judge  of  the  charac- 
ters before  us  by  their  most  perfect  specimens  ;  and  this 
smboldens  me  to  venture  yet  a  word  in  favor  of  that 
character  so  much  aspersed  by  some — the  Warrior.  The 
speakers  w^ho  have  so  blackened  the  military  character 
must  surely  have  forgotten  Washington  and  Farragut, 
Hampden  and  Nelson  !  But  even  if  they  chose  to  for- 
get history,  was  it  so  difficult  to  imagine  a  Soldier-Hero, 
that  they  could  not  even  give  us  an  idea  of  one  ?.that 
they  were  obliged  to  give  us  false  ideas  of  the  character  ? 
"Murderers,"  "barbarians,"  "plunderers:"  are  War- 
riors always  this  f    Have  we  heard  of  no  virtuous,  mer- 


30       THE  WARRIOR,   THE  STATESMAN  OR  THE  POET. 

ciful,  incorruptible  heroes  ?  Is  Hannibal  a  reality,  or  a 
dream  ?  Have  any  here  read  of  Wallace,  or  is  the  name 
only  a  vision  of  my  own  ?  Are  Cincinnatus,  Leonidas, 
Belisarius,  men  who  once  lived  on  earth,  or  are  they  only 

" False  creations 


Proceeding  from  my  heat-oppressed  brain  ?  " 

The  soldier,  sir,  has  not  been  fairly  dealt  with.  Let  his 
detractors  imagine  an  invader  landing  on  our  peaceful 
shores  with  chains  and  slavery  in  his  million-hands.  Let 
them  imagine  the  wild  terror  and  mad  fear  that  w^ould 
arise  in  the  hearts  of  our  people.  Let  them  imagine  our 
commerce  stopped,  our  supplies  cut  off,  our  lives  threat- 
ened ;  one  universal  throb  of  dread  in  all  men's  souls. 
Let  them  imagine  at  the  darkest  moment  a  hero  rising 
from  the  mass,  instilling  courage  into  the  heart,  infusing 
patriotism  into  the  spirit,  exciting  strength  in  the  arms, 
of  the  people.  Let  them  imagine  him  forming  them  into 
enthusiastic  armies,  imbuing  them  with  stern  and  high 
resolve  ;  leading  them  with  dauntless  courage  into  the 
field  of  battle,  and  directing  their  strength  and  valor 
against  the  inslaving  foe  till  he  is  overcome  and  forced 
to  fly  :  and  if,  after  imagining  this,  they  do  not  think 
higher  of  the  Soldier-Hero  than  they  have  done  to-night, 
I  will  give  up  my  defense  of  him. 

Tenth  Speaker.— Sir  :  The  gentleman  who  has  just 
addressed  us  has  very  eloquently  described  the  value  of 
the  Hero,  and  the  service  he  renders  to  his  country  :  but 
he  has  not  compared  him  with  the  "other  characters  be- 
fore us,  and  therefore  has  faiied  to  lead  us  to  a  result  on 
the  matter.  Now  I  have  listened  very  attentively  to  the 
speeches  already  made,  and  I  must  say  that  I  feel  irre- 
sistibly led  toward  the  conclusion  that  our  vote  should 
be  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  Poet.  For  the  Poet  seems 
to  me  to  be,  in  the  best  points  of  their  character,  at  once 
the  Statesman  and  the  Warrior  too.     What  constitutes  a 


THE  WARRIOR,   THE  STATESMAN  OR  THE  POET.        31 

state  ?  Not  the  bodies,  not  the  minds,  but  the  free  souls 
of  its  citizens.  To  give  laws  to  the  soul  is  the  Poet's 
mission,  and  nobly  he  performs  his  task.  Where  is  the 
parchment  that  shows  us  such  a  law  as  Shakespeare  gives 
us  when  he  enjoins  Mercy  ? — 

**  The  quality  of  Mercy  is  not  strained, 
It  droppeth  like  the  gentle  dew  from  Heaven, 
♦  Upon  the  place  beneath  ; — it  is  twice  bless'd — 

It1)lee8eth  him  that  gives,  and  him  that  takes  ; 
'  Tis  mightiest  in  the  mightiest  :  it  becomes 
The  throned  monarch  better  than  his  crown." 

Show  me  the  parchment  that  contains  a  law  like  that, 
and  I  will  almost  fall  down  and  worship  the  Statesman 
that  devised  it.     Well   does  an  eloquent  writer*  of  the 
•  present  day  say — 

"  Whence  does  the  State  its  inspiration  draw 
Of  mercy  ?    'Tis  th£  Poet  frames  the  Law.''' 

And  well  does  another  great  writerf  say,  that  **  Poets  are 

the  unacknowledged  legislators  of  the  world." 

And  so  the  Poet  is  the  Warrior  too.     What  hero  ever 

led  his  men  to  battle  to  such  strains  as  those  of  Henry 

V.  to  his  soldiers,  from  the  pen  of  Poet  Shakespeare  :  or 

as  those  of  Bruce  to  his  army,  from  the  pen  of  Poet 

Burns  ?— 

"  Scots,  wha  hae  wi'  Wallace  bled  I 
Scots,  wham  Bruce  has  aftimes  led, 
Welcome  to  your  gory  bed  1 

Or  to  glorious  victory  ! 

**  Now's  the  day,  and  now's  the  hour, 
See  the  front  of  battle  lour  , 
See  approach  proud  Edward's  power— 
#  Edward  1  chains  and  slavery  I 

*'  Wha  wad  be  a  traitor  knave  ! 
Wha  wad  fill  a  coward's  grave  ? 
Wha  sae  base  as  be  a  slave  ? 

Traitor  !  coward  !  turn  and  flee  ! 

*  John  Westland  Marstan.  ^ 

t  Shelley. 


82       THE  WARRIOR,   THE  STATESMAN  OR  THE  POET. 

**  Wha  for  Scotland's  king  and  law 
Freedom's  sword  will  strongly  draw,— 
Freeman  stand  or  freeman  fa  '— 

Caledonians  I  on  wi '  me  I 

*'  By  oppression's  woes  and  pains  I 
By  our  sons  in  srrvile  chains  I 
We  will  drain  our  dearest  veins, 

But  they  shall— they  shall— be  free  I 

"  Lay  the  proud  usurpers  low. 
Tyrants  fall  in  every  foe, 
Liberty's  in  every  blow  I 

Forward  I  let  us  do  or  die  I  " 

Who  does  not  feel  that  the  heart  which  felt  that  was 
the  true  Warrior  heart  after  all  ?  Who  does  not  feel,  as 
the  wild  strain  flashes  through  his  soul,  that  he  too  could 
fight  for  liberty  and  right  while  a  pulse  of  life  re- 
mained in  him  ? 

In  another  point  of  view,  too — a  far  higher  one — the 
Poet  is  the  Warrior.  He  is  forever  at  war  with  the 
great  foe  oi  man.  Evil.  No  matter  in  what  shape  the 
monster  comes,  falsehood,  tyranny,  persecution,  super- 
stition, hypocrisy,  selfishness  :  he  dauntlessly  attacks 
it  in  all.  His  life  is  one  battle  against  wrong.  To  bring 
about  the  reign  of  good  on  earth,  is  his  unceasing  effort  : 
and  with  an  ardor  compared  with  which  the  enthusiasm 
of  the  soldier  sinks  into  insignificance,  he  fights  under 
his  sacred  banner,  enduring  sorrow  and  defying  death. 
Yes  !  the  Poet  is  the  Warrior. 

I  wonder  it  has  not  occurred  to  any  other  speaker  that 
the  Warrior  and  the  Statesman  themselves  admit  the 
superiority  of  the  Poet.  Why  does  the  Statesman  toiL? 
That  the  Poet  may  celebrate  his  deeds.  Why  does  the 
Warrior  fight  ?  That  the  bard  may  sing  his  victories. 
Is  not  this  an  acknowledgment,  plain  and  ^palpable,  that 
the  Warrior  and  the  Statesman  both  consider  the  Poet 
sii^rior  to  themselves  ?    With  this  I  shall  conclude. 

Opener  {in  reply), — Sir  :  I  have  no  hesitation  in  say- 


■'^: 


THE  WARRIOR,   THE  STATESMAN  OR  THE  POET.        33 

ing  that  the  very  full  and  able  debate  to  which  we  have 
listened,  has  tended  to  convince  me  beyond  doubt  that  of 
the  three  characters  whom  I  submitted  to  your  judgment 
the  Poet  is  by  far  the  noblest,  the  highest,  and  the 
worthiest.  He  is  above  the  Warrior,  inasmuch  as  the 
immortal  must  always  transcend  the  perishable  ;  and  he 
is  above  the  Statesman,  inasmuch  as  morality  must  ever 
be  superior  to  intellectual  wisdom.  The  good  which  the 
Warrior  does,  tends  toward  evil,  and  most  generally 
produces  evil  ;  that  which  the  Statesman  does,  is  muta- 
ble and  temporary  ;  but  that  which  the  Poet  does  is 
everlasting.  Love  of  glory  animates  the  Warrior  ;  so 
that  his  good  deeds  originate,  at  most,  in  selfishness. 
.  The  Statesman  follows  virtue  for  expediency's  sake,  and 
this  shows  him  to  be  selfish,  too.  But  the  Poet  worships 
truth  for  its  own  sake  alone,  and  never  till  he  abandons 
self  can  he  be  a  Poet  at  all. 

I  fear,  however,  it  may  be  thought  that  all  this  is 
speculative.  Let  us  therefore  for  a  moment  view  the 
question  with  the  eye  of  fact.  I  will  select  from  our 
history  the  greatest  Warrior,  the  greatest  Philosopher, 
and  the  greatest  Poet  that  I  find  there.  I  will  take 
Cromwell  as  our  Hero,  Bacon  as  our  Statesman,  and 
Shakespeare  as  our  Poet.  The  same  influences  tended 
to  produce  all  three,  nearly  the  same  time  beheld  them, 
and  they  are  therefore  fit  objects  to  be  mutually  com- 
pared. 

What  then  did  Cromwell  do  for  his  country  ?  Eaised 
it  doubtless  to  its  highest  pinnacle  of  political  greatness; 
conquered  its  enemies,  struck  terror  into  the  hearts  of  its 
malcontents,  acquired  for  it  the  dominion  of  the  seas, 
first,  indeed,  gave  England  that  high  supremacy  in  the 
world  which  from  that  time  to  this  she  has  held. 

But  let  us  look  a  little  further.  What  do  we  see  fol- 
lowing his  despotic  rule  ?  That  which  always  results 
from  military  despotism — licentiousness,  irreligion,  moral 


34       THE  WARRIOR,   THE  STATESMAN  OR  THE  POET. 

slavery.  Charles  the  Second  would  never  have  demor- 
alized us,  had  not  Cromwell  first  trodden  us  down.  So 
it  is  always  with  the  conqueror.  I  could  show  you, 
were  it  necessary,  many  parallel  instances,  some  from 
our  own  records,  some  from  those  of  France  and  other 
countries.  Wherever  the  iron  heel  of  the  Warrior 
treads,  there  spring  up  foul  and  pestilential  weeds  which 
poison  the  whole  atmosphere  around,  and  flower  into 
misery  and  crime.     So  much  then  for  our  Hero  ! 

And  now  what  of  our  Statesman  ?  I  grant  that  the 
clearest  and  most  sagacious  mind  in  all  our  annals  is  the 
mind  of  Bacon,  and  that  his  philosophy  (rightly  studied 
and  understood)  is  of  a  high,  pure,  and  useful  char- 
acter. But  what  has  he  done  for  us  ?  To  say  noth-  • 
ing  of  the  miserable  example  he  sets  us  by  his 
own  conduct,  do  w.e  not  find  that  the  effect  of  his 
works  has  been  to  plunge  Europe  in  skepticism,  if  not 
infidelity;  in  doubt,  if  not  darkness?  To  it  are  clearly 
owing  the  disbelief  of  Hume,  the  atheistic  philosophism 
of  the  last  century,  and  the  mean,  ignoble,  calculating 
utilitarianism  of  the  present  day.  I  do  not  impute  this 
fault  to  Bacon,  nor  to  his  philosophy;  I  merely  instance 
it  to  prove  that  all  mere  mental  teaching  is  vain,  useless, 
and  injurious;  that  it  fills  the  mind  without  touching  the 
heart,  and  that  it  makes  a  man  wise  without  leading 
him  to  be  good. 

But  who  can  estimate  the  vast  benefit  that  Shakespeare 
did  and  is  doing  to  his  country  ?  Who  can  sufficiently 
point  out  the  effect  of  his  chivalrous  patriotism,  his  pure 
benevolence,  his  high  philosophy,  his  sound  morality, 
his  universal  sympathies,  his  glorious  aspirations  to 
nobler  and  to  better  worlds  than  this  ?  The  Warrior,  as 
we  have  seen,  links  man  to  man  by  the  word  of  com- 
mand, the  word  of  authority.  The  Statesman,  as  we  have 
seen,  links  man  to  man  by  the  principle  of  mutual  de- 
pendence and  self-interest.    But  the  Poet  links  man  to 


M3NTAL  CAPACITIES  OF   THE  SEXES.  35 

man  by  the  holj/  tie  of  sympathy  and  brotherhood ;  a 
tie  which  no  authority,  no  force  can  break.  Place,  then, 
these  three  side  by  side— Cromwell,  Bacon,  Shakespeare ; 
and  let  your  choice  point  out  to  you  the  answer  you 
should  give  to  the  question  now  before  us.  You  will  not 
hestitate,  for  you  cannot  doubt.  For  while  you  will 
perceive  that  the  Warrior  and  the  Statesman  are  but  the 
creatures  of  the  day  that  produces  them,  and  perish 
with  that  day,  you  will  also  find  that  the  Poet 
engraves  his  glory  so  deeply  on  the  world's  affections, 
that  till  the  heart  of  man  perishes  forever  in  the  grave 
of  time,  that  glory  shall  be  fresh  and  ineffaceable. 


u 

1^  c; 


QUESTION  HI. 

Are  the  Mental  Capacities  of  the  Sexes  equal? 

Opener. — Sir:  In  rising  to  open  the  question  which 
has  been  put  from  the  chair,  I  assure  you  that  I  feel  the 
need  of  much  indulgence.  I  expect  no  small  amount  of 
reproach  and  contumely  for  the  part  I  mean  to  take  in 
this  debate,  for  I  know  the  gallantry  of  many  of  my 
friends  around  me,  and  I  fully  make  up  my  mind  to 
smart  under  the  weight  of  it.  However,  I  prefer  truth 
to  reputation,  and  I  do  not  mind  a  wound  or  two  in  a 
cause  that  I  feel  to  be  right.  I  will  meet  my  fate  boldly 
t  all  events;  and  I  will  at  once  declare  that,  so  far  as  I 
have  been  enabled  to  judge,  I  have  been  led  to  believe 
that  the  mental  capacities  of  the  sexes  are  not  equal ;  that 


36  MENTAL  CAPACITIES  OF  THE  SEXES. 

the  man's  intellect  is,  on  the  average,  superior  to  the 
woman's.  I  am  quite  ready  to  own  that  this  rule  will 
not  hold  universally.  One  cannot  read  the  records  of 
the  world,  or  look  round  his  own  circle  of  acquaintance, 
without  perceiving  that  some  women  are  superior  to 
some  men.  But  I  arrive  at  my  present  judgment,  hy 
observing  that  the  best  samples  of  the  male  sex  are 
superior  to  the  best  samples  of  the  female  sex ;  and  that 
the  bulk  of  the  male  sex  is  superior  to  the  bulk  of  the 
female  sex. 

We  see  this  proved  whichever  way  we  turn.  In  his- 
tory, which  shines  the  brighter,  the  male  sex,  or  the 
female  ?  Look  among  sovereigns.  Where  is  the  female 
Caesar  ?  the  female  Alfred  ?  the  female  Alexander  ?  Or, 
take  legislators.  What  woman  have  we  to  compare 
with  Solon  or  Lycurgus  ?  Where  are  the  female  phil- 
osoiDhers,  moreover  ?  Where  is  their  Socrates,  their 
Plato,  their  Newton  ?  In  literature,  too  ;  are  the  great 
names  those  of  the  fairer,  or  of  the  sterner  sex  ?  Homer, 
Shakespeare,  Milton,  Byron,  what  lady-writers  equal 
these  ? 

I  shall  not  enter  into  the  philosophical  part  of  the 
question  at  all.  Facts  are  the  strongest  arguments,  and 
these  I  have  produced.  Besides,  I  dare  say  that  some  of 
my  supporters  will  choose  that  view  of  the  matter  ;  and 
into  their  hands  I  am  quite  willing  to  resign  it. 

I  feel  that  I  should  weaken  mj  cause  were  I  to  say 
more.  I  therefore  commit  the  question  to  the  fair  and 
full  discussion  of  the  meeting,  quite  convinced  that  a  just 
conclusion  will  at  length  be  arrived  at. 

Second  Speaker.— Sir  :  My  friend  who  has  just  re- 
sumed his  seat  has  regarded  this  question  as  it  is 
answered  by  history.  I  will  view  it  by  the  light  of 
reason  and  philosophy. 

I  think,  then,  that  women  were  meant  to  be  inferior 
to  men.     The  female  of  every  kind  of  animal  is  weaker 


MENTAL  CAPACITIES  OF  THE  SEXES.  37 

than  the  male,  and  why  should  a  distinction  be  made 
with  the  human  species  ? 

The  sphere  which  the  female  is  called  upon  to  fill  is 
the  domestic  one.  To  rule  and  command  is  the  sphere 
of  man.  He  is  here  to  govern  and  to  guide.  Now  the 
exercise  of  authority  requires  greater  mental  power  than 
the  duties  of  the  other  sex  demand;  and  I  think  that 
man  would  not  have  been  called  upon  to  rule  had  not 
greater  power  been  conferred  upon  him.  .What  would 
follow  if  woman  were  endowed  with  the  sharpest  intel- 
lect ?  Why,  that, '  instead  of  tempering  society  with 
grace  and  softness,  she  would  embitter  it  with  the 
asperities  of  debate ;  that  instead  of  being  man's 
comforter  and  better  angel,  she  would  be  his  intel- 
lectual antagonist,  ever  at  wordy  war  with  him  ; 
that  instead  of  refining  the  hearts  of  those  who 
come  within  the  reach  of  her  gentle  influence,  she  would 
continually  spur,  excite,  and  agitate  their  minds.  Where 
would  be  man's  refuge  from  the  corroding  cares  of  life 
and  thought  ?  Where  would  be  his  domestic  comfort 
and  happiness  ?  Where  would  be  the  unutterable  delight 
that  now  dwells  in  the  magic  word  "Home,"  if  woman 
were  more  intellectually  subtle  than  she  is  ?  All  these 
true  joys  would  be  lost  to  us  ;  and  woman,  instead  of 
earning  our  gratitude  and  affection  by  creating  them, 
would  be  studying  metaphysics,  diving  into  theology,  or 
searching  out  new  stars.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  very 
happiness  of  the  world  depends  upon  the  inequalities  and 
differences  existing  in  the  minds  of  the  sexes,  and  there- 
fore I  shall  vote  with  my  friend  the  opener. 

Third  Speaker.— Sir :  I  rise  to  defend  the  ladies.  I 
admit  the  ability  of  my  two  friends  who  have  preceded 
me,  but  I  dispute  their  arguments,  and  I  utterly  deny 
their  conclusions.  I  shall  deal  with  the  opener  only,  and 
leave  the  other  gentleman  to  the  tender  mercies  of  suc- 
ceeding speakers. 


38        MENTAL  CAPACITIES  OP  THE  SEXES. 

Our  friend  referred  us  to  History :  very  unfortunately, 
I  think.  He  spoke  of  Eulers.  Where  is  the  female 
Caesar  ?  said  he,  and  the  female  Alexander  ?  I  am  proud 
to  reply — Nowhere .  No,  sir,  the  fair  sex  can  claim  no 
such  murderers,  no  such  usurpers,  no  such  enemies  of 
mankind.  They  cannot  boast  of  having  carried  fire  and 
sword  among  defenseless  nations  for  the  sake  of  con- 
quest and  plunder  ;  of  having  trodden  down,  with  re- 
morseless heel,  the  sweet  flowers  of  peace  and  domestic 
happiness  ;  of  having  spread  desolation  and  death  where- 
ever  they  have  gone.  But  perhaps  it  is  as  Heroes  that 
our  frieud  would  have  Caesar  and  Alexander  viewed  ? 
Well,  then,  the  fair  sex  has  its  heroes  too !  Look  among 
martyrs  ;  you  will  find  them  there  ;  among  dauntless 
demanders  of  right  ;  you  will  find  them  there  ;  among 
patient  endurers  of  calamity  and  sorrow  ;  you  find  them 
there !  They  have  no  Alexanders,  they  have  no  Caesars ; 
but  they  have  the  courage  and  the  bravery  of  the  best 
of  them,  and  they  have  greater  virtues  besides,  to  which 
the  others  cannot  lay  the  shadow  of  a  claim. 

Fourth  Speaker. — Without  intending  to  pronounce 
an  absolute  opinion  upon  the  question  now  under  debate, 
J  may  perhaps  be  permitted  to  offer  you  a  few  observa- 
tions. 

I  have  generally  noticed,  sir,  that  intellectual  strength 
is  a  good  deal  modified  by,  and  dependent  upon,  physical 
power.  Physical  power  seems,  indeed,  absolutely  neces- 
sary to  the  possessor  of  intellectual  strength  ;  otherwise 
his  mental  strength  wears  him  out.  Now,  if  woman  has 
equal  mental  power,  how  is  it  that  her  frame  is  physical- 
ly weaker  ?  Either  man  has  too  much  bodily  power,  or 
woman  too  little  :  a  proposition  which  I  imagine  cannot 
be  sustained. 

Further  :  woman's  brain  is  smaller  than  man's ;  and 
does  not  this  of  itself  prove  inferiority  of  mental  strength? 
Philosophers  tell  us  that  the  size  of  the  brain  is  always 


MENTAL  CAPACITIES  OF  THE  SEXES.  39 

the  criterion  of  intellectual  power ;  if  this  be  so,  the  mat- 
ter is,  I  suppose,  at  once  decided  for  us.  I  wait,  how- 
ever, to  be  convinced  by  the  stronger  side. 

Fifth  Speaker. — Then,  I,  sir,  will  try  to  convince 
my  friend.  I  will  try  to  convince  him  that  he  should 
adopt  the  cause  of  the  ladies.  The  fair  sex  have  not  yet 
had  justice  done  them.  ■  What  is  the  argument  employed 
to  prove  their  inferiority  ?  Simply  this :  that  they  are 
not  such  strong  rulers,  such  learned  lawgivers,  or  such 
great  poets.  But  suppose  I  grant  this ;  the  sexes  may  be 
mentally  equal,  notwithstanding.  For,  if  I  can  show 
that  the  female  sex  possess  qualities  which  thejmale  sex 
do  not;  qualities  wMch,  though  widely  different  from 
those  named,  are  quite  as  valuable  to  the  wo];;ld ;  I  estab- 
lish an  argument  in  their  favor  quite  as  strong  as  that 
against  them.  And  I  can  prove  this.  In  affection,  in 
constancy,  in  patience,  in  purity  of  sentiment,  and  in 
piety  of  life,  they  as  far  surpass  man,  as  man  surpasses 
them  in  mere  bodily  strength.  And  what  qualities  are 
superior  to  these  ?  Is  strength  of  intellect  superior 
to  strength  of  heart  ?  Is  the  ability  to  make 
laws  superior  to  the  power  that  wins  and  keeps  affection? 
Is  a  facility  in  making  rhymes  superior  to  sisterly  love 
and  maternal  solicitude  ?  I  think,  sir,  that  it  is  unwise 
and  unfair  to  judge  between  the  two.  The  spheres  of  the 
sexes  are  different,  and  require  different  powers  ;  but 
though  different  in  degree,  they  may  be,  and  I  believe 
i\mj  are,  fully  equal  in  amount. 

Sixth  Speaker. — Sir  :  A  gentleman  who  spoke  a  few 
moments  since,  asked  us  whether  we  were  not  bound  to 
say  that  as  woman's  brain  is  smaller  than  man's,  she  is 
necessarily  man's  intellectual  inferior.  I  see  no  such 
necessity.  The  do»"'s  brain  is  smaller  than  the  calf's  ; 
but  the  dog  is,  notwithstanding,  much  the  more  intelli- 
irent  of  the  two.  Mere  size  of  brain  proves  nothing,  for 
diseased  brains  are  often  the  largest ;  our  friend,  there* 


40  MENTAL  CAPACITIES  OF  THE  SEXES. 

fore,   need  not  fear  to  vote  for  the  ladies  upon,  this 
account. 

The  opener  of  the  debate  said  rather  plausibly,  that  as 
the  male  sex  can  boast  a  Shakespeare,  a  Milton,  and  a 
Byron,  while  the  other  sex  cannot,  therefore^  the  male 
sex-  must  be  superior.  It  is  but  a  poor  argument,  sir, 
when  plainly  looked  at.  We  should  recollect  that  there 
is  but  one  Shakespeare,  but  one  Milton,  but  one  Byron ! 
Who  can  say  that  the  female  sex  may  not  ^ome  day  sur- 
pass these  writers,  famous  though  they  be  ? 

Another  gentleman  spoke  of  Philosophers.  Let  me  re- 
mind him  (for  he  seems  to  have  forgotten,  or  not  to 
know)  that  the  female  sex  can  clafti  a  De  Stael,  a  Som- 
erville,  and  a  Mary  Wolstoncroft. 

Not  that  I  would  claim  for  the  ladies,  for  one  moment, 
any  merit  on  this  ground.  I  think  that  scientific  and 
literary  excellence  is  by  no  means  a  laurel  worth  their 
gathering.  Learning — I  mean  scholastic  learning  -does 
not  sit  gracefully  on  the  female  mind  ;  a  blue-stocking 
is  proverbially  disagreeable.  Woman's  office  is  to  teach 
the  heart,  not  the  mind  ;  and  when  she  strives  for  intel- 
lectual superiority,  she  quits  a  higher  throne  than  ever 
she  can  win. 

Seventh  Speaker.— Sir:  The  gentleman  who  called 
this  a  question  of  difference,  not  of  amount,  of  intellect, 
put  the  question,  to  my  thinking,  in  its  proper  light.  I 
quite  agree  with  the  opener  of  the  debate,  that'in  mere 
mental  power,  in  mere  clearness,  force,  and  intensitjipf 
intellect,  the  male  sex  is  unquestionably  superior  to  the 
female.  When  we  see  the  great  names  arrayed  on  the 
one  hand,  and  the  names,  though  great,  yet  mentally  much 
smaller,  on  the  other,  we  can  not,  I  think,  have  a  doubt 
upon  the  matter.  See,  too,  what  man  has  done :  I  mean 
mechanically  and  palpably.  He  has  discovered  new  shores, 
founded  empires  and  dynasties,  discerned  and  applied 
mechanical  forces;  conquered  stupendous  difficulties,  ac- 


MENTAL  CAPACITIES  OF  THE  SEXES.  41 

complished  great  things  wherever  he  has  been.  What  has 
woman  done  in  comparison — 1  mesm  visibly  done'^  I  need 
njt  press  thequestion^  for  the  answer  must  be  on  all  our 
lips — comparatively  nothing!  But,  at  the  same  time,  I 
can  by  no  means  admit  that  this  proves  woman  to  be  infer- 
ior to  the  other  sex.  Much  of  what  man  has  done  results 
from  his  superior  physical  strength ;  and,  moreover,  if 
man  has  done  great  things  visibly  and  mentally,  woman 
has  accomplished  great  things  morally  and  silently.  In 
every  stage  of  society  she  has  kept  alive  the  conscience, 
refined  the  manners,  and  improved  the  taste ;  in  barbarism 
and  in  civilization  alike,  she  has  gladdened  the  homes,  and 
purified  the  hearts  of  those  she  has  gatliered  around  her. 

While,  therefore,  I  admit,  that  in  mental  strength 
woman  is  not,  and  can  never  be,  eq^ual  to  the  other  sex,  I 
maintain  that  her  superior  morality  makes  the  balance 
at  least  even. 

Eighth  Speaker. — I  am  quite  ready  to  concede,  sir, 
with  the  last  speaker,  that  in  the  private  and  domestic 
virtues  the  female  sex  is  superior  to  the  male ;  but  I  can- 
not go  so  far  with  him  as'  to  say  that  man  is  morally 
woman's  inferior.  For  which  are  the  highest  moral 
virtues?  Courage,  fortitude,  endurance,  perseverance; 
and  these  I  think  man  possesses  far  more  prominently 
than  woman.  Let  the  field  of  battle  test  his  courage ; 
with  what  heroic  boldness  he  faces  certain  death!  His 
fortitude  again ;  what  shocks  he  bears,  what  bereavements 
he  patiently  sustains !  Mark  his  endurance,  too.  Priva- 
tion, hunger,  cold,  galling  servitude,  heavy  labor,  these 
he  suffers  oftentimes,  without  a  murmur.  See  also  how 
he  perseveres!  He  sets  some  plan  before  him.  Days, 
months,  years,  find  it  still  distant,  still  unwon ;  he  con. 
tinues  his  exertions,  and  at  last  he  gains  the  prize.  These, 
sir,  I  contend  are  among  the  highest  moral  virtues,  and 
I  think  I  have  shown  that  the  male  sex  possesses  them 
more  abundantly  than  the  oU^er, 


42  MENTAL  CAPACITIES  OF  THE  SEXES. 

Ninth  Speaker. —Sir:  I  quite  agree  with  the  gentle- 
man who  spoke  last,  that  courage,  endurance,  and  forti- 
tude are  among  the  highest  moral  virtues  ;  but  I  do  not 
agree  with  liim  when  he  says  that  the  female  sex  pos- 
sesses them  in  an  inferior  degree  to  the  male.  True,  man 
shows  his  courage  in  the  battle-field.  He  faces  death, 
and  meets  it  unshrinkingl y.  But  has'not  woman  courage 
quite  as  great  ?  She  fights  the  battles — not  a  few :  often- 
times with  want,  starvation,  and  ruin,  and  bravely  indeed 
does  she  maintain  her  ground.  Far  more  bravely  than 
the  man,  in  fact.  The  first  shock  overcomes  him  at  once ; 
when  attacked  by  distress  he  is  in  a  moment  laid  pros- 
trate. Then  it  is,  sir,  that  woman's  moral  courage,  en- 
durance, and  fortitude  shine  out  the  most.  She  sustains, 
she  cheers,  she  encourages,  she  soothes  the  other;  nerves 
him  by  her  example,  invigorates  him  by  her  tenderness, 
and  directs  him  by  gentle  counsel  and  affectionate  en- 
couragement to  put  his  shoulder  to  the  wheel  of  his 
broken  fortune,  and  restore  himself  to  the  position  he  has 
lost. 

And  how  shall  I  speak  sufficiently  of  the  patience  and 
endurance  with  which  she  will  brave  calamity,  tend  the 
couch  of  sickness,  and  soothe  the  bed  of  death  ?  I  know 
that  not  one  of  us  can  be  a  stranger  to  her  inestimable 
value  in  seasons  such  as  those  just  named  ;  and  therefore 
I  make  sure  of  general  concurrence  in  my  remarks.  I 
think,  sir,  it  has  been  fully  proved  that  woman  is 
morally  superior  to  man,  and  with  this  observation  I  shall 
conclude. 

Tenth  Speaker. — Mr.  Chairman,  I  cannot  help  think- 
ing that  some  of  the  last  speakers  have  wandered  a  little 
from  the  true  subject  before  us.  The  question  was,  "Are 
the  mental  capacities  of  the  sexes  equal  ? "  and  the 
speakers  are  now  hotly  discussing  whether  the  sexes  are 
morally  equal,  with  which  point  I  submit  we  have  noth- 
ing to  do.     To  bring  back  the  discussion  therefore  to  its 


MENTAL  CAPACITIES  OP  THE  SEXES.  43 

proper  track,  I  beg  to  repeat  tliat  whicli  has  yet  been  un- 
answered, namely :  That  as  the  male  sex  have  produced 
the  more  remarkable  evidences,  of  mental  power,  the 
palm  of  mental  superiority  is  evidently  theirs.  Much  has 
been  said  during  this  debate,  but  no  one  has  disproved 
this  assertion  or  denied  the  deduction  from  it.  Till  cause 
is  shown,  therefore,  why  the  verdict  should  not  be  in 
favor  of  the  male  sex,  I  submit  that  we  have  the  right  to 
demand  it. 

Eleventh  Speaker-. — Sir :  The  last  speaker  has  in  a 
taunting  manner  challenged  us  to  deny  his  assertion  and 
to  disprove  his  argument.  I  will  do  both,  at  least  attempt 
to  do  so ;  and  I  trust  I  shall  succeed  in  convincing  my 
bold  friend  that  he  has  not  quite  so  good  a  cause  as  he 
thinks. 

I  will  i>ot  admit  that  the  female  sex  is  outdone  by  the 
male.  True,  the  one  sex  has  produced  a  Shakespeare,  a 
Milton,  and  a  Byron ;  but  the  other  has  a  Sappho,  a  Bar- 
bauld,  and  a  Hemans .  I  will  "not,  however,  pursue  the 
intellectual  comparison,  for  it  wou^d  be  an  endless  and  a 
useless  one. 

But  suppose  I  were  to  grant  what  the  last  speaker 
claimed,  namely,  that  the  female  sex  has  achieved  less 
than  the  male,  what  then  ?  I  can  show  that  woman's 
education  has  been  neglected ;  that  while  the  one  sex  has 
been  taught  all  the  learning,  all  the  wisdom,  that  phil- 
osophy, history,  and  the  fine  arts  can  furnish,  the  other 
has  bv?en  left  to  be  instructed  in  merely  the  fripperies  of 
education ;  that  while  the  one  sex  has  been  lauded  to  the 
skies,  adulated,  honored,  and  flattered,  the  other  has  been 
neglected  and  discouraged  and  unnoticed.  If,  then, 
woman  has  not  possessed  the  advantages  conferred  upon 
the  other  sex,  how  can  3^ou  say  that  she  is  not  naturally 
man's  equal  ?  Till  this  is  answered.^  nothing  has  been 
proved. 

Twelfth  Speaker.— Sir :  I  think  that  the  answer  may 


44  MENTAL  CAPACITIES  OB^  THE  SEXES. 

very  easily  be  given.  Great  stress  has  been  laid  upon  the 
fact  that  education  has  not  been  extended  to  woman,  and 
therefore,  it  is  said,  she  is  not  equal  to  man.  The  fact^ 
then,  of  her  inferiority  is  admitted ;  and  now  let  us  look 
at  the  excuse.  I.  think  it  a  very  shallow  one,  sir.  Was 
Shakespeare  educated?  Was  Burns  educated?  Was  James 
Watt  educated  ?  No !  They  achieved  their  greatness  in 
spite  of  the  disadvantages  of  their  position ;  and  this^ 
sir,  genius  will  always  do.  Nothing  can  keep  it  down ; 
it  is  superior  to  all  human  obstacles,  and  will  mount.  It 
is  for  want  of  genius,  therefore,  not  for  want  of  educar 
tion,  thai  woman  has  remained  behind  in  the  mental 
race. 

I  was  astonished  to  hear  the  gentleman  say,  that  woman 
has  met  with  discouragement  when  she  has  attempted  to 
achieve  excellence.  Sir,  such  is  not  the  case.  Are  not 
the  efforts  of  our  female  writers  always  indulgently  re- 
ceived ?  Besides,  the  male  sex  has  risen  in  spite  of  dis- 
couragement. Galileo  was  persecuted  even  to  imprison- 
ment and  death,  but  he  persevered  in  asserting  his  sub- 
lime discoveries.  Milton  wrote  the  grandest  poem  ever 
conceived,  and  his  family  received  5Z.  for  it ! ! ! — Ot way, our 
greatest  dramatist  after  Shakespeare,  died  literally  from 
starvation ! ! !  It  must  be  evident,  therefore,  that  neither 
want  of  encouragement,  nor  want  of  education  can  keep 
genius  down,  and  as  woman  has  not  yet  shown  equality 
of  mental  power,  I  think  we  may  justly  conclude  that 
she  is  not  endowed  with  it. 

Thirteenth  Speaker. — Mr.  Chairman :  In  spite  of  the 
learned  and  elegant  speeches  of  the  ladies'  champions,  I 
am  still  inclined  to  vote  with  the  opener.  I  think  my 
conclusion  rests  on  good  authority.  We  find  from  Scrip 
ture  history,  that  man  was  created  first,*  and  that  woman 
was  formed  from  a  part  of  man — from  what  Dryden 
calls  "  the  dross  and  refuse  of  a  man  " — from  a  rib,  in 
fact.     Now  I  would  hup^ly  submit  that  as  man  was 


MiENTAL  CAPACITIES  OF  THE  SEXES.  45 

first  formed,  he  wsiS  iJitended  to  be  superior  to  woman; 
and  tliat  woman  being  made  from  a  pai^t  of  man  only, 
cannot  be  looked  upon  as  his  equal.  We  find,  too,  in 
scripture,  that  woman  is  continually  told  to  obey  man, 
and  I  contend  that  this  would  not  be  the  case  were  she 
not  inferior. 

Besides,  sir,  as  it  has  been  ably  argued,  her  duties  do 
not  require  such  great  intellect  as  man's.  Now,  nature 
never  gives  unnecessary  strength  ;  and  as  a  woman  is 
not  called  upon  to  use  great  mental  power,  we  may  be 
sure  she  does  not  possess  it. 

Fourteenth  Speaker. — Sir:  It  seems  to  me  that  the 
remarks  of  the  last  speaker  may  be  easily  shown  to  be 
most  inconclusive  and  inconsistent.  In  the  first  place, 
he  says,  that  as  Adam  was  created  before  Eve,  Adam 
was  intended  to  be  superior.  I  think,  sir,  that  this  argu- 
ment is  -singularly  unhappy.  Why  we  read  that  the 
birds,  beasts,  and  fishes  were  created  before  Adam,  and 
if  my  friend's  logic  were  sound,  Adam  must  be  inferior 
to  said  birds,  beasts,  and  fishes,  in  consequence  ;  an  argu- 
ment, as  I  take  it,  not  quite  supported  by  fact.  Sir,  so 
far  as  we  can  judge,  the  most  important  creatures  seem 
to  have  been  formed-  last,  and  therefore  Eve  must,  ac- 
cording to  that^  be  not  only  inferior,  but  superior  to 
Adam. 

*  Then  as  to  the  argument  about  the  rib.  I  did  not  know 
before  that  a  man's  dross* lay  in  his  ribs,  I  believe  it 
sometimes  lies  higher.  And  what  was  Adam  formed 
out  of  ?  The  dust  of  the  earth.  Now  it  seems  to  me 
that  a  living  rib  is  a  much  more  dignified  thing  to  be 
made  out  of  than  the  lifeless  dust  of  the  ground  :  and  if 
so,  my  friend's  argument  turns  against  himself  rather 
than  against  the  ladies. 

I  heard  the  gentleman  say,  too,  and  I  confess  I  heard 
it  with  some  impatience,  that  woman's  sphere  does  not 
require  so  much  intellect  as  man's.  Whence  he  got  such 


46  MENTAL  CAPACITIES  OF  THE  SEXES. 

an  argument  I  cannot  imagine,  and  I  think  it  by  no 
means  creditable  either  to  his  taste  or  to  his  discernment. 
Who  has  to  rear  the  infant  mind  ?  to  tend  and  instruct 
the  growing  child  ?  to  teach  it  truth,  and  goodness,  and 
piety  ?  Not  impetuous,  impatient  man,  but  enduring, 
gentle,  and  considerate  icoman.  What  more  important 
or  moi^e  difficult  task  could  mortal  undertake  ?  It  re- 
quires the  noblest  intellect  to  teach  a  child,  and  that  in- 
tellect being  required  in  woman,  I  f^l  sure  that  she 
po^^sesses  it.  Although,  then,  I  own,  that  there  are  great 
and  inborn  differences  between  the  intellectual  capacities 
of  the  sexes,  I  cannot  for  an  instant  imagine  that  the  one 
is,  in  the  aggregate,  at  all  inferior  to  the  other. 

Fifteenth  Speaker.— Sir  :  I  have  reflected  calmly 
and  dispassionately  upon  the  question  before  us,  while  I 
have  been  listening  to  the  speeches  made  by  my  friends 
around  me,  and  although  I  own  that  I  was  at  first  in- 
clined to  vote  in  the  affirmative  of  this  question,  I  am 
not  ashamed  to  say  that  my  views  have  undergone  a 
material  alteration  during  the  debate,  and  that  I  have 
now  made  up  my  mind  to  defend  and  vote  for  the  ladies. 

In  the  first  place,  sir,  I  think  we  are  necessarily  unfair 
judges.  We  are  interested  in  the  verdict,  and  therefore 
ought  not  to  sit  upon  the  judgment-seat.  •  It  gratifies  our 
pride  to  think  that  we  are  superior  to  the  other  sex  ;  and 
reflection  upon  this  point  has  convinced  me,  that  upon 
the  ground  of  good  taste  and  modesty  alone,  we  ought 
at  once  to  give  up  the  point,  and  admit  woman's  claims 
to  be  at  least  equal  to  our  own. 

Reason  also  moves  me  to  adopt  the  same  conclusion.  I 
concede  at  once  that  there  are  great  differences  between 
the  capacities  of  the  sexes  ;  but  not  greater  than  between 
various  races  of  our  own  sex.  The  African  savage  is  in- 
ferior to  the  European  philosopher.  Why  ?  Because  he 
}ias  not  been  educated.  So  with  woman.  When  you 
can  show  me  that  woman  has  received  the  same  ad  van- 


MENTAL  CAPACITIES  OP  THE  SEXES.  4^ 

tages  as  man,  and  has  not  then  equaled  him,  why  then 
I  will  vote  against  her  ;  but  not  till  then. 

Besides,  the  differences,  though  innate,  are  not  dif- 
ferences of  amount,  but  of  detail.  A  man  who  has  a 
five-dollar  piece,  and  a  man  who  has  ten  half-dollars,  are 
equally  rich  :  just  in  the  same  manner  woman  may  be 
as  intellectually  great  as  man,  only  possessing  her  mental 
wealth  in  different  coin  from  his.  He  has  one  set  of 
qualities,  she  has  another.  He  has  judgment,  she  has 
tact.  He  has  boldness,  she  has  i)rudence.  He  has 
courage,  she  has  caution.  He  has  reason,  she  has  hope  ! 
Add  up  the  two  sides,  and  though  the  figures  are  dif- 
ferent, the  amount  will  be  the  same. 

It  has  been  said  that  as  woman  is  commanded  in  Scrip- 
ture to  obey,  she  must  necessarily  be  inferior.  This  by 
no  means  follows.  There  must  be  a  head,  they  cannot 
both  rule  ;  though  equal,-  therefore,  one  must  submit. 
The  philosophers  and  statesmen  of  this  country  obey  the 
sovereign  who  is  placed  over  them  ;  but  that  does  not 
prove  them  to  be  inferior  to  that  sovereign  in  intel- 
lect. This  argument  has,  in  fact,  nothing  to  do  with  the 
matter. 

In  conclusion,  I  would  say,  that  as  the  Creator  formed 
woman  to  be  a  help  meet  for  man,  I  cannot  believe  that 
she  was  made  inferior.  She  was  given  to  him  as  a  com- 
panion and  a  friend,  not  as  a  slave  and  servant,  and  I 
think  that  we  are  displayijig"  great  arrogance  and  pre- 
sumption, as  well  as  a  contemptuous  depreciation  of  our 
Great  Creator's  best  gifts,  if  we  declare  and  decide  that 
she  who  adorns  and  beautifies  and  delights  our  existence, 
is  inferior  to  ourselves  in  that  intelligence  which  became 
a  part  of  man's  soul  when  God  breathed  into  him  the 
breath  of  life. 

Opener  {in  reply). — Mr.  Chairman:  You  have  called 
on  me  to  reply.  Now  I  beg  at  once  and  frankly  to  say, 
that  I,  like  the  last  speaker,  have  undergone  conviction 


48  MENTAL  CAPACITIES  OP  THE  SEXES. 

during  tliis  debate,  and  that  I  mean  to  vote  against  the 
proposition  which  a  short  time  ago  I  recommended. 

I  was  misled  by  appearances.  I  h)oked  into  history  ; 
but  I  did  not  examine  it  correctly.  I  looked  at  the  sur- 
face only.  I  saw  great  deeds,  and  I  saw  that  men  had 
perfoT^med  them;  but  I  did  not  estimate  what  had  been 
done  silently.  I  forgot  to  ask  myself  how  much  of  the 
good  these  men  wrought  was  owing  to  the  wisdom  and 
goodness  taught  to  them  in  their  infancy  by  their 
mothers.  So  with  philosophy,  so  with  science.  The 
glitter  caught  me,  and  I  fear  I  lost  the  substance. 

I  am  not  sorry,  however,  that  I  introduced  the  ques- 
tion. It  has  changed  those  who  were  wrong,  it  has  con- 
firmed those  wlio  were  right,  and  it  has  caused  all  to 
think.  Let  me  hope  that  all  who  spoke  on  my  side  of 
the  question  are,  like  their  leader,  converted  ;  and  let 
me  in  conclusion  say,  that  I  trust  we  shall  take  to  our 
hearts  the  truth  w^e  adopt  ;  and  while  we  vote  here, 
that  the  mental  capacity  of  the  female  sex  is  fully  equal 
to  our  own,  show  by  our  conduct  towards  that  sex,  that 
we  feel  their  high  value  and  dignity,  and  treat  them  in 
©very  respect  as  our  full  equals  and  as  our  best  friends. 


IS  CAPITAL  PUNISHMENT  JUSTIFIABLE.  49 

QUESTION  IV. 

Is  Capital  Punishment  Justifiable. 

'Opener — Mr.  Chairman,  I  rise  to  submit  to  the  discus- 
sion of  this  meeting  the  following  important  question  : 
"Is  Capital  Punishment  Justifiable?"  I  feel  that  I 
have  undertaken  a  very  difficult  task  ;  but  urged  by  a 
strong,  indeed  overpowering,  sense  of  duty,  I  am  deter- 
mined not  to  fiinch  from  my  w^ork,  but  to  perform  it  to 
the  very  best  of  my  ability. 

I  entertain  a  deep  and  solemn  conviction,  sir,  that  the 
punishment  of  death  is,  under  any  circumstances,  a  foul 
and  frightful  crime.  I  wish,  however,  to  be  distinctly  un- 
derstood to  admit  that  it  was  not  always  so.  That  it  was 
at  one  period  of  man's  history  commanded  and  approved 
by  the  Most  High,  I  at  once  concede.  But  the  proposi- 
tion I  wish  to  maintain  to-night  is  :  That  the  practice  is 
710W  no  longer  justifiable  in  any  supposable  case. 

In  the  first  place.  Capital  Punishment  is  condemned 
by  policy.  It  is  an  undeniable  fact — a  fact  so  well  known 
as  to  call  for  no  proof  from  me — that  crime  decreases  just 
as  this  punishment  is  more  and  more  discontinued.  For- 
gery, sheep-stealing,  coining,  burglary,  and  other  offenses 
lately  punishable  with  death,  have,  since  the  repeal  of 
the  capital  penalty,  most  strikingly  diminished.  Even 
murder  is  found  to  decrease  just  in  proportion  ks  execu- 
tions become  rarer.  Not  in  our  country  alone,  but 
thi^)ughout  all  Europe,  this  fact  holds  good,  and  it  can- 
not fail  to  tell  us,  in  unmistakable  language,  that  the 
point  wj;iere  punishment  has  become  an  incitement  rather 
than  a  restraint  has  at  length  been  reached,  and  that  the 
principle  and  application  of  punishment  must  conse- 
quently now  be  altered. 

I  may  perhaps  be  asked  to  explain  this  metaphysically ; 
to  show  why  punishment  now  incites  rather  than  pre- 


50  IS  CAPITAL  PUNISHMENT  JtJSTIFIABLE. 

vents  ?  Sir,  this  is  by  no  means  my  duty,  and  I  shall  not 
attempt  it ;  the  fact  proves  my  position,  and  on  that  I 
shall  rely.  Suffice  it  to  say,  tiiat  the  Punishment  of 
Death  is  found  to  be  impolitic,  inasmuch  as  it  increases 
the  crimes  which  it  seeks  to  repress.        •  * 

Secondly,  the  infliction  of  death  is  inconsistent  with 
our  advanced  state  of  morality.  It  was  a  just  and  fit 
punishment  when  men  were  all  barbarians  ;  because 
then  it  appealed  to  their  strongest  sense,  the  sense  of 
physical  pain :  but  now,  when  mental  pain  (and  especi- 
ally the  pain  of  conscience)  is  a  terror  to  men  beyond 
the  fear  of  physical  suffering,  the  infliction  is  signally 
and  necessarily  unfit.  It  is  now  seen  by  the  wise  among 
men,  that  all  crimes  partake  more  or  less  of  the  nature 
of  insanity  ;  great  crimes  more  especially  :  and  conse- 
quently it  is  felt  to  be  unjust  to  kill  a  man  for  a  deed 
which  could  only  have  been  conceived  and  executed 
under  frenzy  or  infatuation.  If  a  further  proof  were 
needed  of  the  immorality  of  Capital  Punishments,  I 
would  point  to  the  aversion  that  is  growing  day  by  day 
in  the  public  mind  against  their  infliction.  Societies  are 
formed,  and  more  are  daily  forming,  for  the  express  pur 
pose  of.,  endeavoring  to  abolish  the  gallows  ;  and  this 
would  not  be,  were  it  not  felt  to  be  morally  abominable. 

Lastly  :  it  is  repugnant  to  our  religion.  We  live  under 
the  mild  and  merciful  dispensation  of  the  Gospel  ;  the 
law  of  death  is  repealed,  and  the  law  of  life  is  substituted 
in  its  place.  We  are  told  to  revenge  not  ourselves,  but 
to  leave  vengeance  to  God.  We  are  bidden  to  be  l#nd 
and  merciful  one  to  another,  even  to  the  worst  offenders. 
By  the  Gospel  we  are  taught  above  all  things  J^he  sur- 
passing value  of  the  human  vsoul  ;  and  this  should  lead 
us,  of  itself,  to  forbear  from  inflicting  a  punishment  which 
sends  the  soul  to  a  tribunal  from  which  there  is  no  appeal. 

I  feel,  sir,  that  I  cannot  now  urge  these  points  at 
greater  length  ;  but  as  they  will  doubtless  be  ami^lified 


IS  CAPITAL  PUNISHMENT  JUSTIFIABLE.  51 

by  many  wlio  are  much  better  qualified  to  enlarge  upon 
tliem,  I  am  glad  here  to  resign  the  subject. 

Second  Speaker. — Sir  :  I  lose  no  time  in  seeking  to 
address  you,  for  I  think  the  subject  of  debate  a  vitally 
important  one. 

I  am  strongly  of  opinion  that  there  is  a  spirit  of  false 
humanity  abroad  in  the  present  day,  which  is  calculated 
to  do,  and  indeed  is  doing,  a  vast  amount  of  harm.  I  do 
not  conceal  from  you,  sir,  my  especial  belief  that  the  cry 
for  the  abolition  of  Capital  Punishment  proceeds  from  a 
mawkish  sentimentality,  a  spurious  mercy,  and  a  most 
unwise  philanthropy.  Whence  all  this  sympathy,  this 
morbid  pity,  this  loud-tongued  pleading  for  the  blood- 
dyed  murderer,  but  from  these  impure  sources  ?  I  am 
astonished,  sir,  that  men  can  be  found  to  defend  the  hor- 
rid crime  of  murder,  and  to  demand  that  it  should  es- 
cape its  righteous  punishment  ! 

As  to  policy :  there  is  too  much  talk  about  policy  in 
the  present  day !  Let  men  do  what  is  right,  and  leave 
policy  to  take  care  of  itself.  It  is  easy  enough  to  say 
murders  decrease  just  as  Capital  Punishment  is  discon- 
tinued, but  why  may  I  not  say  that  this  decrease  in  crime 
is  owing  to  the  spread  of  education,  the  vigilance  of  our 
police,  and  the  increasing  justice  of  our  laws  ?  I  think, 
sir,  that  death  for  murder  is  right,  and  therefore  must  be 
politic. 

But  our  friend  says  that  it  is  7iot  right ;  that  it  is  unjust 
and  immoral.  Is  life  for  life  not  just  ?  Why,  what  can 
be  juster  ?  He  who  does  injury  ought  to  suffer  injury. 
Will  any  one  be  bold  enough  to  tell  me  that  if  a  near 
and  dear  relation  of  mine  were  to  be  barbarously  mur- 
dered in  cold  blood,  it  would  not  be  just  and  proper 
for  me  to  desire  and  demand  the  life  of  the  murderer  ? 
What  is  there  that  is  immoral  in  that  ?  It  seems  to  me 
much  more  immoral  to  forgive  crime,  than  to  punish  it  ,• 
for  crime  is  not  to  be  endured  on  any  terms. 


52  IS  CAPITAL  PUNISHIMENT  JUSTIFIABLE. 

I  was  astonished  beyond  measure^  ?Ir,  when  I  heard 
the  opener  say,  moreover,  that  Capital  Punishment  is 
forbidden  by  our  relig'ion.  Why,  have  we  not  in  the 
first  book  of  the  Bible  this  clear  command — '*  Whoso 
sheddeth  man's  blood  by  man  shall  Ms  blood  be  shed  f " 
What  can  be  plainer  than  that  ?  Besides  this,  have  we 
not  the  laws  which  the  Almighty  expressly  gave  to  the 
children  of  Israel,  enjoining  in  all  cases  death  for  mur- 
der ?  Surely  now  that  the  gentleman  finds  not  only  by 
Divine  Command,  but  by  Divine  Practice  (for  the  Al- 
mighty was  the  head  of  the  Jewish  community),  that 
Capital  Punishment  is  enjoined,  he  will  not  repeat  his 
inconsiderate  assertion  that  the  gallows  is  repugnant  to 
our  religion. 

Not  having  had  much  time  for  preparation,  sir,  I  am 
unable  at  present  to  say  more  ;  but  I  trust  that  the  few 
remarks  I  have  offered  will  have  tended  (even  though 
but  slightly)  to  shake  the  foolish  sentimentality  which 
has  given  rise  to  this  debate,  and  to  give  us  plain  sense 
and  common  justice  instead. 

Third  Speaker.— Sir:  If  I  wanted  a  proof  that  the 
penalty  of  death  is  a  punishment  essentially  inconsider- 
ate, barbarous  and  revengeful,  I  should  find  it  in  the 
speech  of  the  gentleman  who  has  just  preceded  mo.  A 
more  crude,  thoughtless,  ad  captandum  address  I  never 
heard  in  my  life.  It  began  with  abuse  and  ended  with 
self-laudation  ;  while  you  can  scarcely  require  to  be 
told  that  it  contained  not  even  the  shadow  of  a  sound 
argument. 

What  the  speaker  said  about  false  pity  and  spurious 
philanthropy  we  can  afford  to  despise.  When  a  man 
begins  to  call  his  opponent  bad  names,  we  may  be  sure 
that  he  finds  he  has  the  worst  of  the  argument.  Our 
friend's  loss  of  temper,  therefore*  only  proves  the  badness 
of  his  cause. 

From  abuse  the  gentleman  descended  to  misrepresen- 


IS  CAPITAL  PUNISHMENT  JUSTIFIABLE.  53 

tation.  He  told  us  that  the  opponents  of  Capital  Punish- 
ment desire  to  defend  the  crime  of  murder,  and  to  pro- 
tect the  criminal  from  punishment.  Now,  once  for  all, 
sir,  let  us  firmly  deny  and  repudiate  such  folly.  We  ad- 
mit to  the  full  that  murder  is  a  foul  and  awful  crime  ; 
and  we  by  no  means  desire  to  screen  the  offender,  either 
in  sight  of  God  or  man.  We  only  desire  that  the  pun- 
ishment shall  be  a  certain  instead  of  an  uncertain  one  ; 
rational  instead  of  barbarous  ;  and  that  it  shall  be  such 
as  will  restrain,  not  promote,  the  crime.  Away,  then, 
forever,  with  this  thoughtless  charge  of  false  philan- 
thropy ! 

I  reiterate  the  assertion  of  the  opener,  that  the  punish- 
ment of  death  is  impolitic.  Experience  proves  this,  as  we 
have  seen ;  and  reason  proves  it,  too.  €)onsider  for  a  mo- 
ment the  aim  of  Capital  Punishment  inflicted  for  murder. 
It  is  intended  by  the  legislator  to  prove  and  preach  to  the 
people  that  life  is  sacred,  and  that  murder  is  wrong  :  in 
other  words,  life  is  taken  to  teach  that  life  should  not 
be  taken.  Can  any  thing  be  more  absurd  ?  The  act  is  di- 
rectly opposed  to  the  aim.  Can  any  thing  be  more  cal- 
culated to  increase  crime  instead  of  repressing  it  ?  Kiil- 
,j,ing  is  justified  instead  of  being  condemned  ;  and  the 
man  who  is  unaccustomed  to  the  casuistry  by  which  bad 
laws  a^^e  easily  defended,  will  be  disposed  to  justify  a  sim- 
ilar deed,  committed  under  provocation,  by  himself.  And 
the  practice  not  only  misleads,  but  brutalizes,  the  minds 
of  a  people.  They  are  rendered  familiar  with  death,  and 
are  therefore  made  all  the  more  capable  of  inflicting  it. 
A  man  who  witnesses  an  execution  is  depraved  from  that 
moment ;  and  many  an  individual  dates  the  commence- 
ment of  his  sinful  career  from  the  moment  when  he  saw 
the  sanctity  of  life  invaded  by  what  is  called,  or  rather 
miscalled,  public  justice. 

Reason,  then,  as  well  as  fact,  must  lead  us  to  see  that 
Capital  Inflictions  are  impolitic.     Experience  |)roves  it  ^ 


54  IS  CAPITAL  PUNISHMENT  JUSTIFIABLE. 

for  the  crime  increases  as  the  inflictions  abound  :  and 
Beason  proves  it  ;  for  the  slightest  thought  will  lead  us 
to  see  that  killing  justified  in  public,  will  naturally  lead 
to  killing  justified  in  private.  Sir,  I  will  not  trespass  on 
you  longer. 

Fourth  Speaker.— Sir:  I  object  to  Capital  Punish- 
ment, because  I  cannot  see  that  the  ruler  has  any  right 
to  inflict  it.  The  sole  duty  of  the  civil  governor  is  to 
protect  men's  lives  and  possessions  by  the  means  which 
society  delegates  to  him.  Now  he  can  have  no  right 
over  life,  because  no  such  right  can  be  delivered  to  him. 
Man  in  his  natural  state  has  no  right  either  over  his  own 
life,  or  over  the  lives  of  others  ;  the  right  to  kill,  conse- 
quently, cannot  belong  to  the  ruler  by  delegation.  The 
right  of  self-defence  may  perhaps  be  pleaded  ;  but  a  mo- 
ment's reflection  will  serve  to  show  that  it  can  not  hold. 
Killing  in  self-defense  can  only  be  justified  by  the  fact 
that  life  is  absolutely  in  danger  unless  it  be  resorted  to  ; 
and  therefore  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  the  existence  of 
the  state  is  positively  threatened  by  the  preservation  of 
the  murderer,  his  destruction  is  not  to  be  justified. 

Nor  can  the  ruler  have  a  moral  right  to  inflict  death 
as  a  punishment.  The  issues  of  absolute  justice  are  no-  ^ 
where  committed  to  him  ;  and  if  they  were,  he  could 
not  properly  dispense  them.  To  judge  morally,  is  to 
judge  of  motive  ;  and  man  (whether  ruler  or  individual) 
has  neither  the  power  nor  the  authority  to  do  this. 

Nor  can  the  ruler  have  a  religious  right  to  condemn 
his  fellow  man  to  death  ;  for  religion  (as  it  has  been 
shown)  opposes  the  practice,  both  in  spirit  and  in  letter. 

On  the  bare  question  of  right,  then,  I  object,  sir,  to  the 
punishment  of  death  ;  and  this  seems  to  me  a  suflicient 
answer  to  the  question  before  us. 

Fifth  Speaker.  —Sir  :  The  question  of  the  ruler's  ab~ 
stract  right  to  inflict  the  punishment  of  death  is  one 
which  is  very  difficult  to  discuss.     I  must  own  that  in 


IS  CAPITAL  PUNISHMENT  JUSTIFIABLE.  55 

spite  of  the  last  speaker's  observations,  I  am  inclined  to 
think  that  the  ruler  has  such  a  right.  Politically  speak- 
ing, this  right  seems  to  me  to  depend  entirely  upon  ex- 
pediency.  If  the  well-being  of  the  state  is  promoted  by 
the  sacrifice  of  its  worst  members,  then  I  am  of  opinion 
that  the  ruler  has  a  perfect  right  to  resort  to  it.  Wheth- 
er Capital  Punishment  does",  however,  promote  the  well- 
being  of  the  state,  is  a  question  into  which  I  will  not  en- 
ter :  I  wish  to  keep  to  the  mere  matter  of  right. 

I  am  quite  willing  to  admit  that  I  cannot  accord  to  the 
ruler  any  moral  right  to  destroy  his  fellow-beings.  We 
cannot  judge  morally  :  and  the  absence  of  power  seems 
to  me  to  prove,  beyond  question,  the  absence  of  right. 
Besides,  as  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  Great  Judge  of  all 
the  earth  will  unfailingly  recompense  every  man  accord- 
ing to  his  deeds,  there  can  be  no  pretense  that  the  admin- 
istration of  moral  justice  is,  or  needs  to  be,  committed 
into  the  feeble  hands  of  man. 

That  the  ruler  possesses,  however,  a  religious  right  to 
use  the  sword  of  justice,  I  must  say  I  believe.  This  clear 
command,  * '  Whosp  sheddeth  man's  blood  by  man  shall ' 
his  blood  be  shed, "  still  remains  unrepealed  ;  and  in  my 
opinion  is  absolutely  binding.  It  is  quite  true  that  the 
spirit  (and  perhaps  the  letter)  of  the  New  Testament  is  in 
some  measure  opposed  to  this  command,  but  I  cannot 
lielp  thinking  that  a  clear  and  tl^ughtful  mind  might 
reconcile  them. 

I  am  by  no  means  bigoted,  sir,  in  favor  of  the  punish- 
ment of  death  ;  and  I  willingly  concede  that  my  moral 
feelings  are  much  shocked  by  the  practice  ;  but  until  the 
arguments  I  have  put  forward  are  disproved,  I  must  re- 
luctantly remain  aiftong  its  advocates. 

Sixth  Speaker.— Sir :  The  very  temperate  and 
gentlemanly  tone  of  the  address  to  which  we  have  just 
listened,  leads  me  to  hope  that  there  is  still  a  chance  of  a 
fair  and  calm  debate  upon  this  interesting  topic. 


56  IS  CAPITAL  PUNISHMENT  JUSTIFIABLE.  . 

I  think  it  must  be  quite  clear  that  the  evil  eftects  of 
Capital  Punishment  quite  destroy  any  political  right  of 
the  ruler  to  inflict  it.  The  objects  of  punishment  seem 
by  common  consent  to  have  been  resolved  into  three  : 
the  reformation  of  the  offender,  remuneration  to  the 
injured,  and  the  prevention  of  future  crime  ;  and  all 
these  objects  are  frustrated  by  the  penalty  of  death.  It, 
of  course,  prevents  the  reformation  of  the  offender,  for 
it  cuts  him  off  from  all  chance  of  it.  It  fails  in  remun- 
erating the  wronged,  for  it  cannot  bring  back  the  dead. 
And  as  to  preventing  crime,  it  is  notorious  that  at  every 
execution  crime  is  perpetrated  and  planned  under  the 
very  gallows. 

The  political  right  then,  is  dispelled,  the  moral  right 
is  given  up,  and  now  there  remains  only  the  religious 
right. 

The  religious  right  of  the  ruler  to  kill  the  murderer 
rests,  seemingly,  upon  the  passage  in  Genesis,  ' '  Whoso 
sheddeth  man's  blood  b^  man  shall  his  blood  be  shed.'* 
But  who  can  prove  that  this  is  a  command  at  all  ?  I 
think  it  simply  a  prediction  to  the  effect  that  whosoever 
liveth  a  life  of  violence  shall  be  repaid  in  the  same  coin  ; 
— a  simple  denunciation  of  God^s  vengeance  against 
men  of  blood  and  crime.  The  passage,  be  it  remembered, 
is  not  an  imperative  command  ;  it  is  simply  expressed 
in  the  future  tense,  and  is  no  more  a  delegation  of  divine 
authority  than  the  similar  passage,  *'  Whoso  taketh  tlie 
sword  shall  perish  by  the  sword."  It  should  be  noticed 
too,  that  if  the  passage  be  any  authority  at  all,  it  de- 
nounces death  for  manslaughter  as  well  as  for  murder. 
*'  Whoso  sheddeth" — are  the  words  :  there  is  no  distinc- 
tion of  motive  :  homicide  of  Q,\QYy  #ort  is  equally  pun- 
ish;^ -ale  Avitli  death.  This  conclusion  will  not,  I  suppose, 
be  ^Aaintained  by  any  one  ;  and  therefore  1  submit  that 
it  c9.nnot  hold  at  all  ;  the  more  especially  as  it  is  op- 
posed, and  indeed  altogether  condemned,  by  the  Gospel. 


IS  CAPITAL  PUNISHMENT  JUSTIFIABLE.  5? 

If  I  should  have  failed,  sh',  in  estimating  any  part  of 
the  ruler's  right  to  kill,  I  dare  say  I  shall  soon  be  in- 
formed of  it. 

Seventh  Speaker. — When  the  last  speaker  told  us, 
sir,  that  the  extract  from  Genesis  simply  means  that 
God's  vengeance  shall  be  awarded  to  the  murderer,  he 
surely  forgot  that  the  passage  distinctly  says — "61/ 
man  "  shall  the  murderer's  blood  be  shed.  On  these 
two  words,  of  course,  the  whole  weight  of  the  passage 
depends  ;  and  they  are  to  me  quite  conclusive  upon  the 
matter. 

It  has  been  said,  more  than  once  or  twice  in  this  de- 
bate, that  the  New  Testament  is  opposed  to  this  com- 
mand. I  am  of  quite  a  different  opinion.  The  New 
Testament  appears  to  confirm,  rather  than  to  supersede, 
the  divine  authority  of  the  civil  ruler.  ' '  Submit  your- 
selves to  every  ordinance  of  man."  "  The  powers  that 
be  are  ordained  of  God. "  "  Honor  the  king. "  "  Respect 
them  that  are  set  over  you."  "  Resist  not  the  power  ; " 
— do  not  these  passages  clearly  show  us  that  the  ruler  is 
the  Almighty's  vicegerent  ?  This  granted,  let  us  take 
this  other  passage,  "The  ruler  beareth  not  the  sword  in 
vain.  "  Now,  I  think  that  this  clearly  affirms  the 
ruler's  right  and  commission  to  destroy  the  wicked. 
Scripture  emblems  are  all  significant  :  and  the  "  sword  '' 
doubtless  means  the  "power  to  kill."  Here,  then,  we 
clearly  see  that  the  ruler  is  constituted  Heaven's  repre- 
sentative, and  that  when,  as  such,  he  uses  the  sword  to 
smite  the  wicked,  he  does  so  by  divine  authority,  and  is 
consequently  blameless,  and  indeed  praiseworthy. 

Eighth  Speaker. — I  am  not  yet  quite  satisfied,  sir, 
of  the  correctness  of  the  assertion  made  by  one  of  the 
speakers,  that  the  practice  of  Capital  Punishment  must 
tend  to  increase  the  crime  it  seeks  to  prevent.  It  requires 
a  shrewder  logic  than  I  have  yet  listened  to,  to  convince 
me  that  the  public  infliction  of  punishment  must  increase 


58  IS  CAPITAL  PUNISHMENT  JUSTIFIABLE. 

rather  than  repress  iniquity.  Why  does  a  father  correct 
his  child  ?  To  make  it  an  example  to  the  rest.  The  in- 
fliction of  chastisement  operates  upon  the  fears  of  the 
others,  and  so  naturally  restrains '  th-em  from  the  com- 
mission of  crime.  And  as  it  is  with  'children,  so  it  is 
with  men.  The  fear  of  punishment  must  evidently  tend 
to  keep  us  from  falling  into  sin.  And  in  spite  of  what 
has  been  said,  I  firmly  believe  that  the  fear  of  the  gal- 
lows does  restrain  many  men  from  murder.  It  may  be 
a  frightful  spectacle,  perhaps  even  a  depraving  one  (as 
far  as  the  mere  spectators  are  concerned),  but  the  moral 
finds  its  way  into  the  hearts  of  millions  through  the 
land  ;  and  although  from  the  nature  of  things  we  can- 
not see  the  restraint  in  operation,  we  have  every  fair 
reason  to  conclude  that  it  exists  and  acts. 

Into  the  theological  and  moral  parts  of  the  question,  I 
shall  not  seek  to  enter  ;  I  think  that  common  sense  is 
the  fittest  judge  of  the  matter,  and  the  abstrusities  of 
religion  and  justice  have,  I  confess,  no  charms  for  me. 

Ninth  Speaker.— Although,  sir,  "the  abstrusities  of 
religion  and  justice  "  may  *'have  no  charms"  for  the 
gentleman  to  whom  we  have  just  been  privileged  to 
listen,  there  are  men,  I  fancy,  who  will  not  be  quite  so 
ready  to  fling  religion  and  morality  to  the  winds.  To 
shrink  from  testing  the  question  by  theological  and 
moral  considerations,  betrays  the  consciousness  of  weak- 
ness, and  goes  far  to  prove  that  Capital  Punishment  can 
not  be  justified. 

But  the  question  shall  not  be  so  shirked.  The  sup- 
porters of  the  pain  of  death  may,  if  they  please,  dismiss 
from  their  minds  the  sentiments  of  religion  and  morali- 
ty ;  but  we,  its  opponents,  will  not.  Confident  that  by 
these  tests  the  punishment  is  expressly  condemned,  I 
again  reiterate  the  assertion  that  killing  for  murder  is 
Kxot  justified  either  by  morality  or  religion. 

Upon  moral  grounds  I  believe  no  one  will  now  defend 


IS  CAPITAL  PUNISHMENT  JUSTIFIABLE.  69 

it  :  but  the  religious  reason  is  not  yet  given  up.  I 
think,  however,  I  can  now  demonstrate  that  it  must,  for 
the  future,  be  entirely  renounced.  A  gentleman  who 
recently  addressed  us  said  that  the  whole  weight  of  the 
passage  from  Genesis  rests  upon  the  words  "62/  man 
shall  the  murderer's  blood  be  shed  : "  I  quite  agree  with 
this  gentlernan.  These  two  words  certainly  do  seem  to 
imply  a  sort  of  divine  authority  for  the  man  to  kill  the 
manslayer.  But  what  will  the  gentleman  say,  and  what 
will  his  supporters  say,  when  I  assure  them  that  the 
words  "by  man"  are  not  in  the  original  at  all  ?  The 
words  are  simply,  "  Whoso  sheddeth  man's  blood  his 
blood  shall  be  shed  ;  "  there  is  no  delegation  of  authority 
to  man  whatever.  It  is  quite  true  that  Cranmer,  Cover- 
dale,  and  the  Bishops  who  produced  our  present  version 
of  the  Bible,  interpolate  the  words  "by  man  ;"  but  the 
Septuagint,  the  Vulgate,  and  the  versions  of  Scio,  Oster- 
vald,  and  Wycliffe,  reject  them  altoi^ether . 

I  am  not  Hebraist  enough  to  refer  you  to  the  original, 
but  I  am  sufficiently  well  informed  upon  the  matter  to 
assure  you  that  the  exact  translation  of  the  original  pas- 
sage is  this—"  Whoso  sheddeth  man's  blood,  that  is  in 
him,  his  blood  shall  be  shed." 

Here,  then,  falls  to  the  ground  forever  the  imposing 
edifice  which  has  been  built  upon — a  mistranslation! 
The  passage  confers  no  right:  it  speaks  not  of  the  agency 
of  man  at  all,  and  therefore  goes  for  nothing  in  the  ar- 
gument. 

An  intelligent  gentleman  who  addressed  us  some  few 
minutes  since,  expressed  his  belief  that  the  supposed 
command  just  quoted,  and  the  apparently  opposing  pas- 
sages in  the  New  Testament,  might  possibly  be  reconcil- 
able. I  think  the  gentleman  will  now  see  that  they  are 
reconciled.  Without  any  command  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  with  a  decided  repugnance  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, to  shed  human  blood  (even  the  blood  of  criminals) 


60  IS  CAPITAL  PUNISHMENT  JUSTIFIABLE. 

it  will  now  not  be  difficult  to  see  that  the  opener  was 
right  when  he  said  that  Capital  Punishment  is  opposed 
to  our  religion. 

Tenth  Speaker. — Though  a  good  deal  shaken  in  my 
original  conviction  that  the  punishment  of  death  for 
murder  is  defensible,  I  must  confess  that  I  am  not  alto- 
gether satisfied  with  the  arguments  to  which  I  have  lis- 
tened on  the  other  side. 

Granting  that  the  last  speaker  is  right  in  his  new  trans- 
lation of  the  passage  from  Genesis,  how  will  he  or  others 
get  over  the  fact  that  capital  inflictions  were  expressly 
instituted  and  commanded  by  the  Most  High  when  he 
gave  laws  to  the  children  of  Israel?  I  suppose  it  will 
not  be  pretended  that  all  this  is  mistranslated  too;  Cap- 
ital Punishment  was  most  evidently  at  one  time  approved 
by  the  Almighty,  and  if  so,  how  can  we  say  that  it  is 
wrong  in  principle  now?  I  certainly  should  like  this 
point  settled. 

Again :  I  feel  still  of  opinion  that  life  for  life  and  blood 
for  blood  is  sound  and  true  justice;  and  that  the  man 
who  takes  the' life  of  another  deserves  to  forfeit  his  own. 
I  admit  that  man  is  not  altogether  competent  to  judge  of 
moral  guilt;  but  in  so  glaring  a  crime  as  murder,  he 
surely  can  make  no  mistake  in  inflicting  punishment. 

Eleventh  Speakef  —In  reply  to  the  assertion  of  the 
last  speaker  that  we  surely  cannot  make  mistakes  in 
punishing  the  crime  of  murder,  it  might  be  sufficient  to 
point  out  the  errors  that  have  been  made — and  not  a  few. 
Net  only  have  men  punished  manslaughter  as  murder, 
and  murder  as  manslaughter,  but  they  have  actually 
killed  men  as  murderers  who  have  been  subsequently 
found  to  be  entirely  innocent  of  the  crime  for  w^hich  they 
suffered ! 

But  although  the  mere  statement  of  this  fact  suffi- 
ciently rebuts  the  assertion  referred  to,  the  gentleman 
perhaps  wishes  to  know  how  mistakes  in  judgment  can 


IS  CAPITAL  PUNISHMENT  JUSTIFIABLE.  61 

be  made.  I  will  tell  liim.  It  is  chiefly  because  we  have 
not  the  faculty  to  distinguish  between  good  and  evil  mo- 
tives, and  are  thus  led  to  mistake  deeds  of  dreadful  con- 
sequence for  deeds  of  dreadful  crime.  For  Heaven's 
sake,  sir,  let  us  not  think  ourselves  good  moral  judges 
when  we  have  made  such  awful  mistakes  as  to  burn  some 
men  for  their  religious  belief  and  to  crown  others  with 
laurel  for  slaying  thousands  in  the  field  of  battle !  We 
cannot  see  motives  in  any  case,  and  therefore  we  cannot 
properly  condemn  and  punish  them  in  the  murderer. 

But  "  life  for  life,  blood  for  blood,"  is  the  argument 
by  which  Old  Bailey  strangulation  is  justified.  He  who 
does  injury  ought  to  suffer  injury,  it  is  said.  A  nice 
morality  to  be  sure ;  the  simple  but  disgraceful  morality 
of  revenge  and  retaliation :  the  very  system  which  the 
Holy  Gospel  came  to  overthrow.  I  called  the  principle 
disgraceful,  sir;  the  expression  is  a  strong  one:  but  I 
will  not  withdraw  it.  On  the  contrary,  I  reiterate  it.  It 
is  disgraceful.  It  shows  a  barbarous  and  unchristian- 
ized  heart ;  and  I  cannot  help  saying  that  I  think  the 
harborers  of  it  were  meant  for  th^  wild  and  savage  state 
of  the  world  and  have  unluckily  been  born  too  late. 

The  last  speaker  evidently  ought  to  have  existed  in 
the  Mosaic  era :  for  he  lives  in  its  principles.  ''Why," 
says  he,  "  if  Capital  Punishment  was  a  good  law  for  the 
Jews,  is  it  not  a  good  law  for  us?  "  Why  simply,  sir, 
because  we  are  not  Jews.  I,  for  my  part,  am  not  in- 
clined to  live  by  the  light  of  three  thousand  years  ago. 
Men  were  barbarians  when  the  law  of  death  was  en- 
joined :  and  for  them,  doubtless,  the  law  was  the  best 
that^could  have  been  framed ;  but  we  have  now  grown 
into  a  different  state ;  and  the  best  proof  that  the  law  is 
no  longer  fit  for  us  is,  that  it  fails  to  restrain  us.  More- 
over the  law  was  abolished  by  Christ. 

Death  as  a  penalty  for  murder  must  fail.  Let  me  show 
you  why.     The  crime  is  committed  either  by  impulse  or 


62  IS  CAPITAL  PUNISHMENT  JUSTIFIABLE. 

by  calculation.  If  by  impulse,  then  the  mind  that  con- 
ceived it  is  beyond  the  reach  of  moral  restraint  altogether : 
if  by  calculation,  then  the  criminal  finds  the  chances  of 
escape  stronger  than  the  dread  of  discovery  and  punish- 
ment, and  so  despises  the  threat. 

Twelfth  Speaker.— Sir:  I  am  opposed  to  Capital 
Punishment,  because  I  think  that  it  defeats  its  professed 
object  by  its  extreme  severity.  Prosecutors  dislike  to 
come  forward,  witnesses  to  testify,  juries  to  convict,  and 
judges  to  sentence,  when  the  life  of  a  man  is  at  stake ; 
and  this  tends  to  make  the  punishment  uncertain  in  its 
operation,  and  to  lead  the  calculating  offender  to  despise 
it.  Say  what  we  will  about  life  for  life,  there  is  unques- 
tionably great  horror  in  the  public  mind  at  this  law 
of  blood ;  and  even  when  guilt  is  most  clear,  there  is  al- 
ways, when  the  penalty  is  death,  a  strong  effort  made 
to  screen  and  save  the  malefactor.  Now  this  is  caused 
solely  by  the  frightful  nature  of  the  punishment.  If  the 
sentence  were  a  long  term  of  imprisonment,  or  any  other 
secondary  punishment,  there  would  be  no  interference ; 
on  the  contrary  the  law  would  be  allowed  and  assisted  to 
take  its  course ;  but  as  it  is,  it  is  thwarted  by  every  body ! 
The  result  must  be  clear ;  we  are  led  to  oppose  and  hate 
the  law,  and  to  pity,  instead  of  detest,  the  criminal. 
Thus,  a  martyrology  of  the  gallows  is  formed,  and  a 
morbid  sympathy  is  raised  and  disseminated  on  behalf 
of  the  malefactor. 

The  supposed  restraint  of  the  gallows  is  ^vision,  a  chi- 
mera. A  gentleman  said  (and  I  could  not  help  smiling 
at  his  extreme  simplicity)  that  in  the  very  nature  of 
things  we  could  not  see  the  restraint  in  operation — al- 
though he  for  his  part,  believed  in  it !  But  u^hy  cannot 
we  see  this  restraint  at  work?  I  will  tell  you.  Because 
it  does  not  exist.  Who  ever  saw,  or  heard,  or  read  of  a 
man  who  had  been  restrained  from  committing  murder 
by  the  dread  of  the  gallows?    Who  ever  felt  or  feared 


IS  CAPITAL  PUNISHMENT  JUSTIFIABLE.  63 

the  restraint  himself?  In  the  very  natui^e  of  things  it  is 
impossible.  For  when  once  the  idea  of  murder  has  been 
conceived  and  determined  upon,  all  restraint  is  alike 
forgotten  or  despised. 

Speak  as  we  may,  men  do  not  and  will  not  fear  death. 
Lord  Bacon  truly  says,  "There  is  no  passion  so  weak 
but  it  mates  and  masters  this  fear."  Even  the  drunkard 
despises  it ;  and  if  he — the  most  imbecile  of  God's  crea- 
tures— can  do  so,  how  much  more  capable  of  doing  so  is 
the  fierce,  bold,  determined  man  of  crime,  who  crowns 
his  career  with  murder  ?  The  expectation  of  death  is  too 
tremendous  a  thing  to  realize;  and  hope,  even  under  the 
worst  circumstances,  is  so  strong  within  us,  that  it  de- 
ludes us,  and  persuades  us  even  at  the  last  moment,  that 
we  shall  not  surely  die. 

I  think  then  it  must  now  be  clear  that  capital  punish- 
ment, far  from  so  operating  upon  our  fears  as  to  restrain 
us  from  crime,  incites,  from  its  very  nature,  numerous 
hopes  of  escape ;  which,  aided  by  the  calculations  of  rea- 
son, and  the  delusion  which  our  fears  excite,  conspire  to 
render  its  infliction  utterly  inefficient  for  the  sole  end  of 
punishment,  which  is  to  present  to  all  a  stronger  motive 
for  abstaining  from  crime,  than  the  ordinary  motives  for 
committing  it. 

Thirteenth  Speaker. —Sir:  Although  this  discussion 
has  referred  to  the  chief  points  connected  with  this  inter- 
esting subject,  there  are  yet  a  few  considerations  remain- 
ing which  have  not  been  quite  cleared  up. 

In  the  first  place :  It  is  quite  plain  that  when  the  Al- 
mighty gave  His  laws  to  the  Jews,  Capital  Punishment 
for  murder  was  strictly  enjoined ;  and  I  have  as  yet  heard 
no  arguments  to  show  that  if  the  principle  was  right 
then,  it  is  wrong  now. 

Again:  It  is  expressly  asserted  in  Scripture  that  the 
ruler  is  the  vicegerent  of  the  Almighty;  and  if  this  be 
so,  it  will  follow  that  when  the  ruler  inflicts  death  as  a 


64  IS  CAiPITAL  PUNISHMENT  JUSTIFIABLE. 

punishment,  he  does  it  as  God's  representative,  and  is 
therefore  blameless. 

Further :  We  are  told  to  submit  to  the  ruler,  to  resist 
not  the  power,  and  so  forth.  Now,  does  not  this  clearly 
show  that  we  are  wrong  in  questioning  the  authority  of 
the  civil  governor,  and  guilty  of  contempt  toward  the 
"powers  ordained"  of  God,  when  we  seek  to  deprive 
them  of  the  sword  which  He  has  committed  into  their 
hands  ? 

It  has  been  said  that  murderers  ought  not  to  be  pun- 
ished with  death,  because  insanity  must  have  prompted 
them  when  they  committed  their  crimes;  but  this  in- 
sanity^has  not  been  proved.  How  are  we  to  know  that 
they  were  insane  ?  It  appears  to  me,  sir,  that  unless,  it 
can  be  most  undeniably  shown  that  a  murderer  is  out  of 
his  mind  when  he  kills  his  victim,  he  ought  to  suffer  for 
the  deed. 

Once  more :  It  appears  from  the  statement  of  one  of 
the  speakers,  that  some  of  the  Bible  translators  vrrit5 
"6?/  ^^<^^  shall  the  murderer's  blood  be  "shed,"  while 
some  do  not.  But  why  are  we  to  take  the  version  w^hich 
has  not  the  w^ords,  and  reject  that  which  has  ?  We  may 
as  well  take  the  one  as  the  other.  Authorities,  it  seems, 
disagree,  and  there  must  consequently  be  two  sides  to 
the  question. 

Lastly:  If  you  abolish  death  as  a  punishment,  what 
will  you  give  us  instead  ?  I  can  see  no  punishment  so 
fit  or  so  entirely  commensurate  with  the  crime.  It  is  a 
plain  application  of  the  golden  rule  :  To  do  as  you  would 
be  done  by.  Will  you  sentence  them  to  solitary  impris- 
onment f  This  would  be  more  barbarous  than  death,  by 
far.  What,  then,  will  you  give  us  in  place  of  a  punish- 
ment which  is  at  once  striking  and  exemplary;  and 
which,  moreover,  by  giving  the  condemned  criminal  an 
interval  between  the  sentence  and  its  execution,  provides 
him  with  leisure  for  repentance  in  the  sight  of  God  ? 


IS  CAPITAL  PUNISHMENT  JUSTIFIABLE.  65 

Until  all  these  various  objections  are  satisfied,  sir,  I  am 
persuaded  that  a  great  majority  of  mankind  will  remain 
of  opinion  that,  however  benevolent  the  abolition  of  the 
gallows  may  seem,  it  is  a  truer  benevolence  that  demands 
its  retention. 

Opener  {in  reply). — Sir:  I  rise  to  off er  a  few  words  in 
reply. 

It  seems  to  be  tacitly  admitted  by  all,  that  the  gallows 
can  only  be  defended  while  it  is  found  to  be  expedient. 
As  to  whether  it  is  expedient  or  not,  there  seems  still  to 
be  a  question. 

Now  no  one,  sir,  has  attempted  to  controvert  my  asser- 
tion that  executions  increase  crime.  I  do  not  wonder  at 
this,  for  the  fact  (explain  it  as  we  may)  is  not  to  be  de- 
nied.    Experience,  then^  at  all  eveitts  is  with  us. 

And  reason,  sir,  is  with  us,  too.  The  punishment  of 
death  must  fail  to  restrain,  because  it  is  not  till  all  moral 
restraint  has  become  too  feeble  to  bind,  that  the  crime  is 
determined  on. 

It  has  been  shown,  moreover,  that  we  have  no  right  to 
kill.  From  self-defense  we  get  no  right,  because  we  can 
defend  ourselves  without  inflicting  death;  by  delegation 
we  get  no  right,  for  there  is  no  such  right  in  the  pre- 
tended delegator's  possession ;  from  morality  we  get  no 
right,  because  the  custody  of  morality  is  not  committed 
to  us. 

Some  think  that  we  derive  a  right  from  religion :  let 
me  expend  a  moment  in  denying  this !  It  is  quite  true, 
as  the  last  speaker  affirmed,  that  there  are  two  versions 
of  a  certain  passage  in  the  Bible,  by  one  of  which  we  de- 
rive, or  ferret  out,  a  sort  of  vague  authority  to  kill  a 
manslayer ;  and  by  the  other,  of  which  we  find  no  such 
authority  at  all.  But  if  there  are  two  versions,  each  of 
whidi  has  its  unyielding  defenders,  the  passage  is  at  best 
but  one  of  doubtful  meaning ;  and  is  a  doubtful  verse  a 
foundation  strong  enough  to  sustain  the  awful  act  of 


66  IS  CAPITAL  PUNISHMENT  JUSTIFIABLE. 

judicial  slaughter  ?  No,  sir,  not  in  the  eyes  of  men  of 
sense. 

But  we  are  pointed  to  the  fact  that  God  himself  or- 
dained Capital  Punishment  when  He  gave  laws  to  the 
children  of  Israel.  Sir,  the  Jewish  system  has  been 
superseded  these  nineteen  centuries,  and  is  now  no  rule 
at  all  for  us.  Besides,  the  Jewish  law  awards  death  to  a 
host  of  other  ofiPenses  as  well  as  to  murder ;  and  if  we 
take  it  as  our  rule  in  one  case,  we  ought  also  to  follow  it 
in  all  cases.  Should  we  be  right  in  hanging  a  man  for 
killing  a  sheep  ?  for  breaking  the  Sabbath  day  ?  for 
swearing  at  his  parents  ?  Ridiculous !  And  so  it  is  also 
ridiculous  to  say  that  we  ought  to  hang  for  murder  he- 
cause  the  Jewish  law  enjoined  it ! 

We  have  been  told  that  the  ruler  is  the  representative 
of  the  Almighty,  and  therefore  that  he  is  right  in  inflict- 
ing Capital  Punishment.  The  absurdity  of  this  line  of 
argument  is-  easily  demonstrable.  Was  Nero  heaven's 
vicegerent  ?  Was  Henry  the  Eighth  heaven's  commis- 
sioner? Was  Queen  Mary  the  appointed  minister  of 
God?  These  worthies  bore  *'the  sword;"  was  it  the 
sword  of  eternal  justice,  think  you?  They  '*  smote" 
with  it,  too:  was  it  in  heaven's  name,  or  in  heaven's 
cause,  or  by  heaven's  direction  that  they  did  so  ?  Are 
Nero's  atrocities  to  be  justified — are  Henry  the  Eighth's 
72,000  executions  to  be  approved — are  Queen  Mary's  in- 
famous Smithfield-bon fires  to  be  defended,  upon  the  plea 
that  these  wicked  sovereigns  were  "powers  ordained  of 
God  ? "  Doubtless  power  comes  from  heaven ;  all  power ; 
the  power  to  kill  with  the  rest ;  but  it  may  be  wrongly 
used:  and  the  "powers "  may  be  amenable  to  sense  and 
justice  for  the  errors  they  commit  in  the  employment  of 
it.  Capital  Punishment  may  be  wrong,  then,  in  spite  of 
the  * '  divine  commission  "  of  the  ruler. 

The  gentleman  who  spoke  last  desired  to  knowliow 
the  assertion  that  all  murderers  are  insane  can  hQ  proved. 


IS  CAPITAL  PUNISHMENT  JUSTIFIABLE.  67 

The  answer  is  most  easy :  by  the  deed  of  murder  itself. 
Murder  is  a  thing  so  unnatural,  so  revolting,  so  tremend^ 
ous,  that  no  sane  being  can  conceive  or  perpetrate  it. 

But  what  do  we  propose  to  substitute  for  the  penalty 
of  death  ?  is  a  question  asked  of  us.  Sir,  it  matters  not 
wliat — that  is  short  of  death.  Any  thing  is  better  than 
slaughter  :  for  all  other  punishments  affect  the  body 
alone,  while  slaughter  kills  body  and  soul,  too.  Let  us 
imprison  our  murderers  for  life.  We  imprison  our  mad- 
men ;  let  us  add  these  to  them  :  and  we  shall  not  do 
wrong.  Society  will  be  safe,  for  the  culprit  will  be  pre- 
cluded from  the  opportunity  of  doing  further  harm  : 
the  land  will  be  purified  from  blood  ;  and  the  gallows 
will  no  longer  be  the  filthy  creator  of  a  world  of  fright- 
ful crime. 


68       DOES  MORALITY  INCREASE  WITH  CIVILIZATION. 

QUESTION  V. 
Does  Morality  increase  with  Civilization  ? 

Opener. — Sir  :  I  think  we  have  here  lighted  upon  a 
question  of  great  value  and  interest  ;  a  question  involv- 
ing some  most  important  principles,  and  one  calculated 
to  lead  us  to  conclusions  affecting  materially  our  whole 
life  and  conduct. 

We  are  to  say  whether  Civilization  promotes  Morality  ; 
or  in  simpler  words,  ichether  Knoicledge  leads  to  Virtue. 
If  we  say  "Yes  "  to  this  question,  then  we  shall  see  that 
it  is  our  duty  to  promote  the  mental  instruction  of  our 
fellow-m^n  by  every  means  in  our  power  :  and  if  we  say 
"No  "  to  it,  then  we  shall  hesitate  ere  we  help  to  slake 
that  craving  thirst  for  intellectual  knowledge  which  is 
one  of  the  chief  signs  of  our  age,  and  which  is  doubtless 
working  toward  some  vast  result  of  evil  or  of  good. 

By  the  term  Morality,  sir,  I  mean  good  conduct  ;  con- 
duct in  accordance  with  justice  and  virtue.  I  do  not 
mean  mere  conventional  propriety,  or  simple  literal  ad- 
herence to  the  moral  law  ;  self-interest  or  hypocrisy  may 
be  the  source  of  this,  and  the  most  outwardly  irreproach- 
able man  may  be  really  the  most  inwardly  foul  and  de- 
testable of  his  species.  I  mean  by  morality,  good  con- 
duct springing  from  true  principle  :  and  by  my  question 
I  seek  to  know  whether  this  Morality  is  promoted  by  the 
increase  of  Civilization.  I  wish  to  determine  what  con- 
nection subsists  between  the  mind  and  the  heart  :  and  I 
think  that  I  cannot  better  discover  this  than  by  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  subject  I  have  proposed. 

I  do  not  mean  for  the  present  to  take  either  one  side  or 
the  other  ;  I  candidly  own  that  I  come  to  learn  rather 
than  to  teach.  I  have  taken  some  pains  to  mold  my  ques- 
tion into  tlie  best  form   that  I  could  shape  for  it ;  and  I 


DOES  MORALITY  INCREASE  WITH  CIVILIZATION.        69 

only  stay  to  express  my  hope,  that  the  speakers  will  keep 
as  closely  as  possible  to  the  meaning  of  the  subject  as  I 
have  developed  it. 

Second  Speaker. — Sir  :  Fully  agreeing  with  the  opener 
of  the  debate  in  the  opinion  which  he  has  expressed  of 
the  importance  of  the  subject,  I  take  the  liberty  to  offer 
a  few  remarks  to  the  meeting. 

I  am  inclined  to  adojpt  the  negative  side  of  this  ques- 
tion. I  can  not  see  that  there  is  any  connection  whatever 
between  knowledge  and  goodness.  Knowledge  is  the 
wisdom  of  the  brain  :  goodness  is  the  wisdom  of  the 
heart  :  and  they  are  things  perfectly  distinct  and  different 
from  one  another.  This  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  very 
learned  men  are  often  very  bad  men,  while  virtuous  men 
are  often  very  ignorant.  Were  the  affirmative  of  the  ques- 
tion true,  it  would  naturally  follow  that  the  wisest  men 
would  be  the  best  men  ;  which,  unfortunately,  is  by  no 
means  the  case.  I  am  afraid,  indeed,  that  the  reverse  of 
this  proposition  would  be  nearer  the  truth  :  for  it  too 
frequently  happens,  alas  !  that  the  wisest  are  the  worst 
men.  History  shows  us  this  in  many  signal  instances. 
One  of  the  most  remarkable  cases  is  Lord  Bacon's.  Here 
was  a  man  whose  intellect  was  gigantic,  and  whose  at- 
tainments were  unparalleled  :  yet  his  morality  was  so 
weak  that  he  was  bribed  on  the  very  judgment-seat,  and 
ended  what  might  have  been  a  glorious  career,  in  dis- 
grace and  humiliating  shame.  This  will  show  at  once 
that  there  is  no  necessary  connection  between  intellect 
and  goodness,  that  there  is  no  road  from  the  head  to  the 
heart.  We  are  led  to  believe,  and  reason  warrants  the 
conclusion,  that  the  very  Prince  of  Evil  has  surpassing 
mental  strength  ;  but  we  know  he  has  no  virtue  :  wis- 
dom, therefore,  is  perivXjtly  consistent  with  the  deepest 
immorality.  When  we  see,  moreover,  that  the  general 
tendency  of  mere  intellect  (unless  directed  by  virtue)  is 
toward  evil  rather  than  toward  good,  I  think  we  can 


70       DOES  MORALITY  INCREASE  WITH  CIVILIZATION. 

have  no  doubt  that  iii  reply  to  the  question  put  from  the 
chair,  we  must  say  that  Morahty  does  not  necessarily  in- 
crease with  Civilization. 

Third  Speaker.— Sir  :  Though  my  experience  in  de- 
bate has  hitherto  been  but  small,  I  have  learned,  not- 
withstanding, that  a  theory  may  be  exceedingly  pretty 
and  true  to  the  look,  and  yet  be  altogether  cojitradicted 
by  fact.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  theory  propounded 
by  the  last  speaker  is  just  in  this  predicament  :  nothing 
can  seem  more  undeniable  ;  nothing  can  be  less  true. 

Theorize  as  long  as  we  may,  there  can  be  no  doubt  of 
this,  that  as  the  world  has  become  civilized,  it  has  become 
morally  better.  I  care  not  into  what  department  of  mor- 
ality you  go,  you  will  find  improvement  upon  improve- 
ment in  it  as  you  trace  its  history.  In  political,  in  social,  in 
domestic  or  in  religious  morality,  you  will  discover  a  com- 
plete denial  of  the  theory  that  wisdom  has  nothing  to  do 
with  virtue.  The  world  was,  in  the  early  ages,  overrun  with 
violence  and  blood  :  now  it  is  covered  with  peace  and  plen- 
ty. Formerly  all  nations  were  at  war  ;  now  war,  al- 
though still  existing,  is  almost  unknown.  History  shows 
us  that  law  was  at  one  time  only  a  series  of  written  tyran- 
nies ;  now  it  is,  or  is  gradually  becoming,  the  engraven 
word  of  justice.  Kings,  in  ages  gone  by,  were  absolute  and 
uncontrolled  ;  shed  the  blood  of  their  subjects  like  water, 
plundered  without  pity,  and  destroyed  without  remorse  : 
now  kings  are  little  more  than  other  men  :  they  are  as 
much  amenable  to  law  and  reason,  and  can  do  no 
wrong  without  accounting  for  it.  What  has  wrought 
this  change  ?  Why,  civilization,  of  course  ;  men  knoiv 
better  than  they  did,  and  therefore  do  better  than  they 
did.  Learning  has  generated  improvement,  and  improve- 
ment has  introduced  morality.  These,  sir,  are  my  senti- 
ments upon  the  interesting  subject  before  us. 

Fourth  Speaker.— Sir :  The  most  that  the  last  speaker 
has  proved  is,  that  there  is  a  coincidence  between  increas- 


DOES  MORALITY  INCREASE  WITH  CIVILIZATION.        71 

ed  civilization  and  improved  morality  :  he  has  by  no 
means  shown  that  there  is  a  connection  between  them. 
Civilization  has  advanced,  and  morality  has  advanced ;  but 
we  may  just  as  well  say  that  the  morality  has  improved 
the  civilization,  as  that  the  civilization  has  improved  the 
morality. 

If  I  were  asked  to  name  the  cause  of  this  improvement 
•n  morality,  I  should  ascribe  it  to  Christianity  rather 
than  to  civilization.  I  cannot  find  that  the  world  ad- 
vanced much  till  the  Gospel  came.  It  is  from  that  period 
that  war  declined,  that  kings  were  humanized,  that  laws 
were  ameliorated,  and  that  peace  began  its  reign. 

And  the  influence  of  Christianity  upon  virtue  is  easily 
traceable  :  while  the  effect  of  civilization  is  not  trace- 
able. Peace,  justice,  mildness,  and  temperance  are  the 
very  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  :  while  wisdom,  I  mean 
worldly  wisdom,  intellect,  genius,  and  learning  are  by  no 
means  the  instruments  that  the  Gospel  uses  to  propagate 
its  principles.  ' '  Not  many  wise,  not  many  learned,  are 
called  "  to  propound  its  doctrines,  and  to  unravel  its  mys- 
teries ;  but  men  of  warm  and  strong  hearts  liave  ever 
been  its  most  successful  preachers. 

Civilization,  on  the  other  hand,  has  clearly  done  much 
evil :  it  has  spread  error  with  truth  ;  has  introduced  lux- 
ury and  enervating  refinement ;  and  has  taught  the 
world  fraud,  pride,  and  hypocrisy.  In  barbarism  there 
is  no  intemioerance,  no  envy,  no  deceit ;  but  in  civilized 
society  all  these  vices  abound.  I  am  of  opinion,  sir,  that 
no  poet  ever  wrote  a  truer  sentiment  than  Byron  pro- 
duced in  that  striking  line — 

"  The  Tree  of  Knowledge,  is  not  that  of  Life.  " 

Fifth  Speaker.— Sir:  I  am  not  at  all  disposed  to  deny 
llie  vast  influence  of  the  Christian  religion  in  liumariiz- 
iiig  and  moralizing  the  hearts  of  men  ;  but  I  really  think 
that  civilization,  or  intellectual  wisdom,  has  its  merits  too. 


72       DOES  MORALITY  INCREASE  WITH  CIVILIZATION. 

For  myself,  sir,  I  have  always  imagined  that  the  term 
civilization  includes  Christianity.  Civilization  signifies 
whatever  brings  men  out  of  barbarism :  and  I  deem  it  very 
unwise  to  restrict  the  meaning  of  the  term  to  mere  mental 
knowledge.  I  cannot  believe  that  the  mind,  the  intellect 
of  man,  has  done  nothing  to  improve  the  condition  of 
the  race  :  I  feel  that  to  assert  such  a  thing  must  be  to  re- 
flect upon  the  All- wise  Being  who  gave  us  our  three-fole^ 
nature  of  body,  mind  and  soul.  One  gentleman  told  us 
that  brain  and  heart  (mind  and  soul)  were  distinct  and 
different  things.  Sir,  1  cannot  think  so  :  they  belong  to 
the  same  being,  and  must  be  intimately  dependent  upon 
each  other.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  the  knowledge 
acquired  by  the  brain  must  necessarily  moralize  the 
heart  :  but  I  do  mean  to  say  that  the  heart  must  be 
affected  by  the  brain.  Our  conscience,  for  instance,  is 
our  moral  guide,  and  reproves  or  commends  us,  as  we  go 
wrong  or  right.  Now,  the  conscience  must  depend  upon 
the  intellect  for  its  knowledge  of  right  and  wrong ;  it  is 
only  through  the  intellect  that  the  moral  knowledge 
comes.  Nay,  the  amount  of  intellect  is  singularly 
enough,  the  very  gauge  of  morality.  A  man  who  has 
no  intellect,  an  idiot,  is  very  properly  not  held  morally 
accountable  at  all  ;  for  it  is  seen  that  as  he  can  not  hnow 
right  and  wrong,  he  can  not  do  them.  If  then,  the  doing 
right  or  doing  wrong  absolutely  depends  upon  our  intel- 
lectual knowledge  of  the  one  from  the  other,  how  can 
we  say  that  the  heart  is  not  affected  by  the  brain  ?  The 
^Tree  of  Knowledge  is  not  that  of  life,  I  grant,  but  know- 
ledge at  least  opens  our  eyes  and  shows  us  where  life  is. 

Sixth  Speaker. — A  short  and  easy  way  of  discover- 
ing what  improvements  m  morality  the  present  time  ex- 
hibits as  compared  with  more  uncivilized  ages,  is  to  take 
the  Decalogue,  and  see  how  it  is  obeyed.  This  is  ac- 
knowledged to  be  our  highest  moral  code,  and  conse- 
quently is  the  fittest  test  we  can  set  up. 


DOES  MORALITY  INCREASE  WITH  CIVILIZATION.        73 

Do  we  keep  the  first  then  ?  Do  we  "  worship  only 
ONE  TRUE  GOD  ?"  Alas  !  we  have  a  multitude  of  deities. 
Mammon,  jftonor,  Glory  and  Selfishness  are  worshipped 
(one  or  other  of  them)  by  the  great  majority  of  men. 
We  are  little  better  herein  than  the  heathen  who  fall 
down  to  blocks  of  wood  and  stone. 

Do  we  ''honor  our  parents"  as  we  should?  I  al- 
most blush  to  ask  the  question,  sir ;  for  a  shameless  disre- 
gard of  parental  authority,  a  studied  contempt  for  hon- 
orable age,  is  one  of  the  most  crying  sins  of  the  day. 

"Thou  shalt  not  kill"  is  one  of  the  Deity's  com- 
mands :  and  we  break  it  in  a  thousand  ways.  We  kill 
for  conquest,  for  fame,  for  gold,  for  revenge,  and  for 
many  other  pretexts,  even  worse.  O  sir,  let  us  get  out  of 
our  barbarism  before  we  begin  to  talk  about  what  has 
been  done  for  us  by  civilization  ! 

"Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness"  is  another 
moral  law :  and  this  is  the  worrt  kept  of  all.  Who  has 
not  been  slandered  ?  Who  haL  not  been  falsely  accused? 
Who  has  not  had  his  "  life's  life  lied  away  "  by  tongues 
charged  with  the  venom  of  wickedness  ?  ' '  False  wit- 
ness !  "  when  do  we  meet  with  true  witness  ?  Never, 
§ir,  was  falsehood  so  triumphant  as  now  :  and  civiliza- 
tion seems  only  to  swell  its  glory. 

As  to  the  rest  of  the  moral  law — it  is  a  mockery  to  ask 
how  it  is  observed.  Vice,  Lewdness,  Bigotry,  and  Super- 
stition sit  balef  ully  glittering  in  the  high  places  of  the 
world,  while  Truth  is  silenced,  and  Conscience  stifled. 

I  attribute  all  this,  sir,  to  the  boasted  march  of  intellect, 
and  I  tremble  as  I  do  so.  For  I  know  that  unless  the 
Ail  wise  prevent,  we  shall  be  hurried  ere  long  into  a 
blind  and  bottomless  atheism,  as  miserable  as  it  will  be 
impious. 

Seventh  Speaker.— Sir :  In  spite  of  the  melancholy 
jeremiad  just  delivered,  I  really  can  by  no  means  see 
that,  bad  as  the  world  confessedly  is,  intellect  has  done  all 


74       DOES  MORALITY  INCREASE  WITH  CIVILIZATION, 

the  mischief.  Knowledge  must  be  good,  for  the  Most 
High  is  himself  omniscient  ;  and  although  I  cannot 
trace  the  connection,  I  firmly  believe  ^lat  perfect  wisdom 
is  perfect  goodness.  Tlie  Avisest  of  men  has  said  that  "for 
the  soul  to  be  witliout  knowledge  is  not  good,"  and  I,  for 
one,  fully  admit  the  truth  of  the  assertion.  Other  wise 
men  have  told  us  that  religion  never  comes  but  through 
the  mind  :  that  we  hrst  perceive  the  glorious  handiwork 
of  the  Creator  in  this  beautiful  and  wonderful  w^orld, 
and  then  rise  "from  nature  up  to  nature's  God" — direct- 
ed toward  revealed  religion  by  natural  religion;  and 
the  doctrine  seems  warrantable  and  reasonable.  Which 
is  tlio  more  capable  of  worshiping  the  Almighty  ?  The 
untaught  savage  into  v/hose  ignorant  mind  the  rays  of 
thoi;giit  have  never  penetrated;  or  the  cultivated  philos- 
oplici'  who  has  discovered  the  divine  hand  of  the  great 
Croatoi'  in  His  works  ?  The  gentleman  who  spoke  last 
moui'iied  dolefully  over  the  non-observance  of  tl.ie 
moral  laws;  but  does  not  the  giving  of  the  moral  law  to 
man  clearly  sbow  that  his  mind  is  addressed  in  order 
tiiat  ho  may  be  moralized  ?  These  laws  are  communica- 
ted to  his  mind.  He  is  made  to  know  them,  and  his  obe- 
dience is  tried  and  judged  by  his  knowledge. 

The  Gospel  is  addressed  as  much  to  the  mind  as  to  the 
heart  ;  this  clearly  proves  to  me  that  the  mind  of  a  man 
has  much  to  do  with  his  morality.  Is  not  the  mind  ad- 
dressed by  the  preachers  of  God's  word  ?  Nay,  how  can 
they  get  to  the  heart  at  all  but  through  the  mind  ?  The 
mind  must  receive  intellectually  before  ttie  soul  can  learn 
spiritually.  Where  belief  is  not  a  matter  of  the  mind, 
as  well  as  of  the  heart,  it  is  only  a  kind  of  superstition  ; 
and  thus  it  is  that  religion  is  too  often  a  thing  of  im- 
pulse or  passion,  instead  of  one  of  judgment  and  con- 
viction. 

Eighth  Speaker. — I  fear,  sir,  that  our  speakers  have 
gone  somewhat  into  extremes  in   treating  this  subject, 


DOES  MORALITY  INCREASE  WITH  CIVILIZATION.        75 

and  I  am  inclined  to  fancy  that  the  truth  of  the  matter 
hes  somewhere  between  them. 

Mere  intellect,  doubtless,  leads  to  error,  and  so  does 
mere  impulse  ;  but  there  is  no  truth  without  mental  and 
moral  conviction  too.  It  is  unwise  to  set  up  the  head 
and  the  heart  as  rivals  ;  they  are-  fellow-workers  in  the 
cause  of  virtue,  and  ought  to  fraternize,  not  quarrel. 

We  owe  both  good  and  evil  to  the  brain,  and  we  owe 
both  good  and  evil  to  the  heart.  Pushed  to  extremes, 
intellect  tends  toward  disbelief,  and  feeling  towards  cred- 
ulity ;  it  is  only  by  a  union  of  the  two  that  we  arrive  at 
truth. 

That  intellect  has  done  much  service  to  the  cause  of 
virtue,  I,  for  my  part,  cannot  doubt  for  a  moment.  It 
has  at  least  taught  us  to  see.  When  Adam  plucked  of 
the  tree  of  Knowledge,  his  eyes  were  opened.  Sight 
is  the  first  step  towards  wisdom,  and  towards  virtue 
also  ;  for  we  must  see  evil  before  we  can  begin  to  attack 
it.  We  have  seen  not  a  little  evil,  and  through  seeing, 
have  abolished  it.  We  have  seen  for  instance,  that  ab- 
solute sovereignty  is  bad,  and  we  have  done  away  with 
it  :  we  have  seen  that  slavery  is  abominable,  and  we 
almost  destroyed  it  ;  we  have  seen  that  ivar  is  detestable, 
and  we  have  well  nigh  discontinued  the  practice  ;  and 
we  have  seen  and  abolished  a  thousand  other  pressing 
errors. 

We  have  been  told  that  civilization  has  introduced 
some  vices.*  I  will  not  attempt  to  deny  it.  Nothing  on 
earth  is  perfect,  and  intellect  is,  like  every  thing  else, 
liable  to  go  wrong.  But  it  generally  works  its  own  cure. 
Thus,  although  it  has  introduced  luxury,  it  has  discovered 
and  taught  the  great  lesson  that  luxury  is  an  evil  ;  and 
although  it  has  introduced  hypocrisy,  it  has  raised  in 
many  minds  a  love  of  truth  far  higher  and  purer  than  it 
would  or  could  have  been  but  for  the  contrast.  I  shall 
certainly  vote  in  the  affirmative. 


76       DOES  MORALITY  INCREASE  WITH  CIVILIZATION. 

Ninth  Speaker. — It  may  be  very  true,  sir  :  and  I  be- 
lieve it  is  true,  that  as  civilization  has  advanced,  outward 
morality  has  improved.  I  admit  that  the  world  looks 
better  than  it  formerly  looked,  but  whether  it  is  better, 
is  quite  another  thing.  I  have  my  fears,  sir,  on  this 
matter.  I  fear  that  crime  is  quite  as  great,  although  not 
quite  so  glaring.  We  have  less  violence,  less  bloodshed, 
and  less  fighting  on  the  field  of  battle  ;  but  there  is  just 
as  much  strife  in  our  hearts,  and  just  as  much  mutual 
hate.  In  addition  to  this,  there  are  to  be  added  the 
crimes  which  civilization  clearly  causes.  I  think  that 
the  liar,  the  hypocrite,  the  miser,  the  slanderer  and  the 
spendthrift  are  creations  of  civilized  society  alone.  In 
barbarism  these  characters  do  not  exist  ;  there  may  be 
others,  perhaps  belonging  peculiarly  to  savage  life,  but, 
in  my  opinion,  they  are  not  so  bad.  Besides  these,  soci- 
ety creates  the  atheist,  the  skeptic,  the  scorner,  the  infidel, 
and  the  bigot.  Compared  with  the  condition,  physical 
as  well  as  moral,  of  the  happy  inhabitant  of  the  woods 
and  wilds,  civilized  man  seems  a  tamed,  a  spiritless,  a 
conventional  and  degraded  being :  further  from  his  fellow- 
man,  and  further  from  his  God. 

Take  the  history  of  any  nation  you  please,  and  you 
will  find  that  its  course  is — first  civilization,  then  lux- 
ury, and  then  decay  and  ruin.  It  was  so  with  Greece,  so 
with  Rome,  and  it  promises  to  be  the  same  with  the  most 
enlightened  nations  of  modern  times.  It  seems  to  me 
that  virtue  and  happiness  are  infinitely  more  prevalent 
in  a  barbarous  state  than  in  a  civilized  one  ;  and  I  can- 
not but  attribute  the  comparative  un worthiness  of  the 
civilized  community  to  the  influence  of  mere  intellect 
unaccompanied  by  morality.  With  these  sentiments  I 
shall  certainly  vote  in  the  negative  of  the  proposition 
which  has  been  read  from  the  chair. 

Tenth  Speaker.— Sir  :  I  really  wonder  that  the  gen- 
tleman who  last  addressed  us  spoke  in  English.     He 


DOES  MORALITY  INCREASE  WITH  CIVILIZATION.        77 

seemed  so  enamored  of  the  happiness  of  the  woods  and 
wilds,  that  I  imagined  him  a  Eed  Indian  in  the  disguise 
of  a  gentleman,  and  I  was  only  surprised  that  he  did  not 
speak  his  barbarian  morality  in  a  barbarian  tongue . 

But  to  be  serious  :  I  am  surprised  beyond  expression 
that  an  individual  can  be  found  to  lament  that  the  world 
has  been  civilized,  and  to  wish  for  the  pleasures  of  barbar- 
ism, in  place  of  the  pleasures  of  refinement.  How  he  can 
imagine  that  a  barbarian  is  happier  than  a  civilized  man, 
I  cannot  conceive.*  He  will  not  pretend  that  he  is  pJiy- 
sically  happier,  I  suppose  :  for  surely  regular  food,  ap- 
propriate clothing,  and  comfortable  lodgment  are  far 
superior  to  the  coarse  victuals,  the  ragged  garments,  and 
the  rude  hut  of  the  savage.  Nor  can  he  maintain  that 
the  savage  is  mentally  happier  :  for  I  am  sure  that  our 
friend  must  have  felt  at  some  time  or  other  the  magnifi- 
cent delights  of  thought,  of  reason,  of  reflection  ;  and 
must  have  then  believed  that  no  delights  could  be  more 
full  of  happiness.  Neither  will  he  say  that  the  savage  is 
morally  happier  :  for  the  pleasures  of  hope,  of  benevo- 
lence, of  affection,  of  charity,  of  social  intercourse,  and 
of  religious  belief  and  meditation  are  altogether  strangers 
to  his  heart  ;  while  to  the  very  worst  of  us  they  are  all 
in  some  measure  known.  Among  all  our  errors,  sir, 
never  let  us  fall  into  so  gross  a  one  as  to  wish  that  we 
were  still  barbarians. 

These  remarks  may  not  seem  altogether  to  the  point, 
but  they  are  ;  for  if  it  can  be  shown  that  civilized  man 
is  more  hapj)y  than  the  barbarian,  then  he  must  be  mor- 
ally better  :  for 

"  Virtue  alone  is  happiness  below  :  " 

and  consequently  the  possession  of  superior  happiness  at 
once  proves  the  existence  of  superior  morality. 

Eleventh  Speaker. — It  seems  to  me,  sir,  that,  after 
all,  this  question  is  mainly  one  of  fact.   Experience,  not 


f8       DOES  MORALITY  INCREASE  WITH  CIVILIZATION. 

speculation^  must  decide  11  le  matter  for  us.  Are  men 
better  than  tliey  were  ?  Do  we  actually  find  it  so  or 
not? 

It  is  true  tliat  it  is  difficult  to  judge  ;  but  we  can  judge, 
for  all  that.  Admitting  that  much  of  the  world's  appa- 
rent virtue  is  unreal,  the  very  assumption  proves  that 
there  is  real  virtue  to  represent.  There  would  be  no 
false  coin  were  there  no  true  money  ;  and  so  in  like  man- 
ner thei'e  would  be  no  mock  goodness  were  there  no  real 
virtue  to  counterfeit. 

There  appears  to  be  no  question  that  the  world  is  bet- 
ter conducted  than  it  was.  Kings  are  milder,  laws  are 
juster,  judges  are  less  prejudiced  and  corruptible,  and 
men  of  all  sorts  and  classes  are  infinitely  better  behavea. 
But  is  the  world  hoUQv -hearted  f  that  is  the  question.  I 
maintain  that  it  is  ;  and  I  think  I  can  prove  the  correct- 
ness of  my  assertion. 

How  is  it,  I  would  ask,  that  all  these  great  changes 
have  been  wrought  ?  How  is  it  that  tyranny  has  been 
repressed,  injustice  subdued,  and  licentiousness  put  down? 
Simply  by  the  force  of  public  opinion.  The  minds  of  men 
have  discovered  that  tyranny,  injustice,  and  licentious- 
ness are  evils ;  and  these  truths  would  'never  have  been 
arrived  at  but  from  a  growing  belief  in  morality,  and  an 
increasing  desire  to  apply  its  principles. 

Compare  the  public  opinion  of  crime  in  the  present  day 
with  the  public  opinion  of  crime  a  hundred  years  ago, 
and  you  will  see  an  improvement  in  the  moral  convic- 
tion, as  well  as  in  the  intellectual  perception,  of  the 
nature  and  consequences  of  evil.  Formerly  murder  was 
so  common,  as  scarcely  to  be  deemed  a  crime;  street 
assassinations  were  things  of  every -day  occurrence ;  now, 
murder  is  felt  to  be  so  ghastly  a  deed,  that  no  sane  man 
can  be  supposed  to  perpetrate  it.  Formerly,  duelling 
\Yas  a  practice  universally  approved  of  and  followed; 
now  it  is  looked  upon  as  an  imbecile  folly,  and  a  cowardly 


DOES  MORALITY  INCREASE  WITH  CIVILIZATION.        79 

Sill.  Formerly,  debauclieiy  was  considered  a  most  ex- 
cusable, indeed  indispensable,  mode  of  life :  now  it  meets 
willi  tlic  contemx^t  of  every  tliouglitf ul  man  ;  nay,  even 
witli  the  pity  and  ridicule  of  every  v/ell-taught  cLild. 
Drunkenness  and  profanity  were  tlie  practices  of  even  the 
educated  and  great;  now  a  gentleman  is  never  seen  in- 
toxicated, and  never  heard  to  swear ;  he  considers  either 
practice  a  disgrace  to  him. 

Turn  where  we  will,  we  cannot  fail  to  see  that  the  stand- 
ard of  morality  is  far  higher  than  it  was  ;  and  more- 
over, is  rising  day  by  day  to  nobler  heights ;  and  although 
I  will  not  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  the  march  of  intellect 
has  caused^  and  is  causing  this,  I  am  satisfied  that  the 
improvement  in  mind  and  morals  has  been,  and  is  con- 
temporaneous ;  and  therefore  that  there  is  a  relation,  and 
a  very  close  one,  between  the  brain  and  the  heart. 

I  do  not  pretend  to  say  that  by  making  a  man  wise, 
you  are  sure  to  make  him  good ;  nor  do  I  afhrm  that  the 
surest  producer  of  happiness  is  intellectual  cultivation ; 
but  I  assert,  and  will  maintain,  that  the  more  a  man  is 
civilized,  the  more  he  is  77iadG  capable  of  being  good,  the 
more  he  will  incline  to,  and  seek  after  virtue ;  and  far 
from  entertaining  any  fears  that  the  spread  of  knowledge 
which  we  witness  in  the  present  day  is  calculated  to  do 
harm  to  the  cause  of  morality,  I  feel  the  strongest  hope 
and  belief  that  it  is  fast  preparing  the  way  for  a  nobler 
and  purer  reign  of  goodness  than  has  ever  yet  been  known 
on  earth. 

Twelfth  Speaker.— Sir:  I  grieve  that  I  cannot  join 
in  the  pleasing  anticipations  which  have  been  so  warmly 
depicted  by  the  last  speaker.  The  dream  is  a  pleasing 
one,  sir,  but  it  is  a  dream,  and  we  must  not  allow  it  to 
mislead  us, 

I  cannot  see  upon  what  grounds,  either  of  factor  logic, 
the  gentleman  has  built  his  conclusion. 

It  cannot  be  from  experience ;  for  I  defy  him  to  point 


80       DOES  MORALITY  INCREASE  WITH  CIVILIZATION. 

out  an  instance  in  history  when  a  period  of  mere  intellec- 
tual activity  has  been  succeeded  by  a  i)eriod  of  increased 
morality:  nay,  I  defy  him  to  name  an  age  of  intellectual 
greatness  which  has  not  been  followed  by  a  diminished 
morality. 

I  will  not  refer  to  ancient  time,  for  the  examples  are 
too  remote;  but  I  will  instance  modern  times  instead. 
The  revival  of  letters  in  Italy  was  succeeded  by  a  grosser 
superstition  than  man  had  ever  known  before ;  the  Shake- 
spearian era  of  literature  was  followed  by  fanaticism, 
tyranny,  and  civil  war ;  the  wonderful  age  in  France's 
intellectual  history,  which  is  represented  by  Voltaire  and 
Rousseau,  was  succeeded  by  revolutionary  frenzy  and 
hideous  licentious  atheism. 

So  that  fact  will  not  support  the  vision  of  our  friend. 

But  will  philosophy,  will  reason,  warrant  his  agree- 
able but  improbable  belief  ?  What  is  there  in  the  nature 
of  things  to  lead  him  to  suppose  that  knowledge  is  the 
precursor  of  virtue  ?    Seeing  is  not  doing, 

"  Men  know  the  right,  and  yet  the  wrong  pursue." 

Adam  knew  full  well  w^hat  a  penalty  was  attached  to 
breaking  the  law  which  God  gave  him  in  Paradise  ;  but 
the  knowledge  did  not  restrain  him  from  plucking  the 
forbidden  fruit  :  on  the  contrary,  it  directly  incited  him 
to  his  crime. 

Knoidedge  oi  good  is  worth  nothing  until  the  potrer^- 
to  do  good  is  given,  and  that  power  comes  from  the  Most 
High  alone.  I  am  quite  ready  to  grant  that  virtue  with 
intellect  combined  is  far  greater  than  virtue  alone,  and 
will  do  more  good  ;  but  mere  intellectual  force  or  sub- 
tlety never  was,  and  in  my  opinion  never  will  be,  the 
cause  of  goodness.  '^The  serpent  was  more  subtle  than 
any  beast  of  the  field." 

Thirteenth  Speaker.— Sir  :  King  Solomon  once  said 
— '*  With  all  thy  getthigs  get  understanding  ;  "  and  I 


DOES  MORALITY  INCREASE  WITH  CIVILIZATION.        81 

am  firmly  persuaded  that  this  injunction  would  never 
have  been  recorded  in  Holy  Writ,  were  there  no  good  to 
be  got  from  the  mind's  cultivation. 

In  spite  of  the  last  speaker's  logic,  I  still  believe  that 
the  improvement  of  the  understanding  does  promote 
morality.  We  know  that  unless  a  physician  is  acquainted 
with  the  disease  of  his  patient,  he  cannot  possibly  cure 
him.  Now  immorality  is  the  disease  of  the  soul  ;  and 
unless  a  man  knows  the  nature  and  symptoms  of  the 
disorder,  it  is  impossible  that  he  can  heal  it.  Knowledge 
is,  both  in  physics  and  in  morals,  the  first  step  toward 
recovery. 

It  is  true  that  great  knowledge  may  be  allied  to  pro- 
found immorality  :  but  perfect  wisdom  must  be  perfect 
virtue.  The  serpent  was  more  subtle  than  any  beast  of 
the  field,  it  is  true  ;  but  the  Most  High  was  much  wiser 
than  the  serpent. 

I  do  not  look  upon  intellect  as  the  absolute  cause  of 
virtue,  but  I  would  rather  liken  it  to  the  forerunner  of 
virtue.  It  opens  the  way,  it  sheds  light  upon  the  path, 
and  it  removes  difficulties  and  obstructions  which  would 
otherwise  be  insurmountable. 

Opener  {in  reply). — Sir  :  I  feel  now  fully  prepared  to 
maintain  the  affirmative  of  £he  question  which  I  was  the 
means  of  submitting  to  the  consideration  of  the  meeting. 
That  morality  increases  with  civilization,  I  have  now  not 
the  slightest  doubt. 

The  position  I  mean  to  assume  is  this  :  that  knowledge 
is  not  in  any  sense  the  cause  of  goodness  ;  but  that  its 
progress  is  always  contemporaneous  and  coincident  with 
the  progress  of  goodness.  I  have  come  to  the  conclusion, 
that  although  knowledge  and  virtue  are  by  no  means 
mutually  affected,  yet  the  causes  that  'advance  the  one 
77iust  advance  the  other  ;  and  therefore  that  they  pro- 
gress together. 

I  trust  that  this  position  will  be  understood.    Two 


82       DOES  MORALITY  INCREASE  WITH  CIVILIZATION. 

needles  may  be  attracted  toward  one  magnet  ;  neither 
needle  helps  the  other,  yet  both  are  drawn  forward.  Just 
in  like  manner  the  mind  and' soul  (the  brain  and  heart) 
are  both  carried  onward  by  civiUzation,  yet  neither  is  in- 
debted to  the  other  for  its  progress. 

That  the  intellect  and  morality  do  advance  in  equal 
ratio,  must  now,  I  think,  be  tolerably  clear.  The  great 
moral  improvements  that  have  taken  place  in  every  de- 
partment of  human  life  and  conduct,  are  of  themselves 
sufficient  to  prove  this  assertion.  If  there  be  any  doubt 
remaining,  I  would  ask  the  objector  to  explain  this  fact, 
that  crime  always  exists  in  proportion  to  ignorance. 
Malefactors  are  nearly  all  uneducated.  Our  prisons  are 
filled,  not  with  men  of  intellect  and  learning,  but  with 
men  of  ignorance  and  folly. 

A  gentleman  who  spoke  recently,  asserted  that  an  age 
of  intellectual  activity  is  always  followed  by  an  age  of 
immorality.  I  do  notdoabt  it,  sir.  Who  reaps  his  har- 
vest on  ihe  day  after  he  sows  his  corn  ?  Who  expects 
fruit  in  the  winter  '? 

In  the  natural  world  the  seed  is  sown  ;  then  it  perishes  ; 
then  it  quickens  ;  then  it  springs  up,  and  then  it  bears 
fruit.  And  in  the  moral  world  the  process  is  the  same. 
The  germ  of  truth  is  cast  into  the  heart;  then  it  is  lost 
in  darkness;  then  it  is  revivified  ;  then  it  shows  its 
blossom  to  the  world,  and  then  the  blossom  is  succeeded 
by  the  fruit. 

This  will  explain  to  our  friend  the  phenomena  of  the 
dark  ages  that  succeeded  the  periods  of  enlightenment  to 
which  he  directed  our  attention. 

In  those  ages  of  intellect,  the  seeds  of  truth  were  soitm, 
and,  as  was  natural,  in  the  next  age  those  ^eeds  perished  ; 
but  the  periods-of  darkness  were  succeeded  by  eras  of 
brightness  superior  to  any  that  had  gone  before  ;  and 
then  the  world  reaped  the  produce. 

And  this  is  tlie  course  of  truth  in  all  ages.   With  light 


HAS  THE  STAGE  A  MORAL  TENDENCY.  83 

there  is  always  darkness,  with  truth  there  is  always  an 
intermixture  of  error  ;  but  as  darkness  always  makes 
daylight  the  brighter,  so  the  existence  of  error  always 
leads  to  the  discovery  of  higher  truth.  Had  sin  never 
entered  the  world,  it  is  true  that  man  would  never  have 
known  death ;  but  neither  would  he  have  known  Heaven. 
Night  shows  us  stars,  sorrow  shows  us  truths,  and  the 
knowledge  of  sin  shows  us  the  beauty  of  Morality. 


QUESTION  VI. 
Has  THE  Stage  a  Moral  Tendency  ? 

First  Speaker.— Sir  :  The  question  of  the  morality 
or  immorality  of  theatrical  entertainments  is  one  of  the 
most  interesting,  and  probably  one  of  the  most  important, 
that  can  engage  uS.  When  we  reflect  upon  the  univer- 
sal passion  that  has  been  exhibited  for  this  species  of 
amusement  ;  when  we  further  remember  that  some  of 
the  noblest  productions  of  human  intellect  have  been 
offered  to  the  world  through  the  medium  of  the  Stage  ; 
and  when,  lastly,  we  bear  in  mind  that  the  theater  is  one 
of  the  chief  pleasures  of  the  youthful  members  of  the 
community  in  all  times  and  countries,  w^e  shall  see  at 
once  that  we  have  here  a  subject  well  worthy  of  debate. 

I  mean  to  maintain,  sir,  that  the  Stage  has  not  a  moral 
tendency  :  and  I  come  to  this  conclusion  not  because  I 


84  HAS  THE  STAGE  A  MORAL  TENDENCfY. 

have  any  ascetic  objection  to  the  gay  nature  of  the  pleas- 
ure in  itself,  nor  because  I  think  that  there  are  any  sound 
religious  objections  against  theatrical  entertainments  in 
the  abstract  ;  but  because,  after  fairly  weighing  the 
arguments  for  and  against,  I  conceive  that  the  Stage  does 
more  harm  than  good. 

That  the  Stage  might  he  made  a  great  powerful  moral 
teacher,  I  will  not  pretend  to  dispute ;  that  it  has  done 
much  moral  good,  I  will  not  deny  either  ;  but  our  ques- 
tion concerns  the  present  tendency  of  the  drama  only, 
and  that^  I  still  assert,  is  evil. 

What,  then,  is  the  Stage  ?  A  medium  for  presenting 
to  the  world  the  sweepings  and  rubbish-heaps  of  intellect. 
Tragedies  of  milk  and  water.  Comedies  of  fashionable 
licentiousness.  Farces  of  inane  absurdity.  Dramas  of 
blood,  blue-fire  and  slang.  Operas  of  the  most  irredeem- 
able silliness ;  and  ballets  of  the  most  gross  indecency. 

This  is  the  Stage  itself ;  and  now  what  of  its  promoters  ? 
Its  authors  (with  one  or  two  exceptions)  are  not  the  men 
of  talent  of  the  day  {they  are  driven  away  from  the 
boards  by  want  of  encouragement)  but  the  scavengers  of 
literature ;  men  who  do  not  originate,  but  copy  from  the 
worst  originals  they  can  find,  and  manage  to  corrupt 
even  them.  The  iinplements  of  our  dramatists  are  not 
thought,  passion,  and  knowledge;  but  scissors  and  paste 
merely.     Oh !  what  a  change  from  Shakespeare  I 

"  Who  but  must  mourn,  while  these  are  all  the  rage, 
The  degradations  of  our  vaunted  stage  ?  " 

And  who  are  the  actors  ?  There  are  individual  excep- 
tions of  great  worth,  but  as  a  body  they  are  the  most 
profligate,  shameless,  and  impure  of  the  species.  You 
find  among  them  adulterers,  seducers,  gamblers,  drunk- 
ards, anjl  common  knaves  innumerable ;  who  can  expect 
much  morality  from  them  ? 

And  who  are  the  patrons  of  the  Stage  ?    Who  are  the 


HAS  THE  STAGE  A  MORAL  TENDENCY.  85 

people  that  visit  the  theater  ?  Listless  fashionables,  rakish 
dandies,  smug  apprentices,  dissipated  shopmen,  and 
idlers  about  town ;  just  the  very  congregation  you  would 
expect  to  attend  such  preaching  ! 

I  feel  that  I  have  very  little  need  to  ask  you  whether 
all  this  can  be  in  the  least  favorable  to  morality ;  for  my- 
self, I  am  at  present  quite  convinced  to  the  contrary;  and 
until  I  hear  arguments  stronger  than  any  to  which  I  have 
ever  yet  listened  on  the  subject,  I  fear  that  I  shall  remain 
of  the  same  opinion. 

Second  Speaker. — Sir  :  With  a  great  deal  that  was 
smart  and  pointed  in  the  remarks  of  the  previous  speaker, 
there  was,  in  my  opinion,  much  that  was  thoughtless,  if 
not  illogical.  Admitting  that  the  Stage  is  neither  so  great 
nor  so  pure  as  it  was  in  Shakespeare's  time,  the  proof  of 
this  is  by  no  means  a  fair  argument  against  its  iabstract 
morality.  Every  thing  of  earth  is  liable  to  abuse,  and 
the  Stage  is  of  course  not  an  exception. 

Our  friend  referred  to  the  great  taste  that  exists  for 
theatrical  entertainments ;  now  does  not  this  of  itself 
prove  that  the  Stage  is  looked  to  by  mankind  as  a  moral 
teacher  ?  So  extended  and  universal  a  passion  ought  to 
be  gratified  because  it  is  extended  and  universal.  I 
would  not  pander  to  that  taste  :  but  I  would  certainly  do 
my  best  to  satisfy  it,  and  through  it  direct  the  mind  to 
truly  moral  pleasures. 

What  the  Stage  has  done  ought  to  be  most  carefully 
borne  in  mind  in  answering  the  question.  We  should  not 
forget  how  the  Greek  tragedians  softened,  purified,  and 
elevated  the  barbaric  mind ;  how  the  Roman  players  ex- 
tended civilization  and  refinement ;  how  the  great  Shakes- 
peare impressed  the  heart  of  the  world  with  thoughts  of 
truth,  grace,  and  beauty,  that  can  never  die ;  and  how 
since,  as  well  as  previously,  our  dramatists  have  por- 
trayed, and  our  actors  have  delineated,  honor,  courage, 
patriotism,  friendship,   and   virtue,  till  their  principles 


86  HAS  THE  STAGE  A  MORAL  TENDENCY. 

must  have  been  engraven  in  the  very  souls  of  the  spec- 
tators. 

Well,  if  the  Drama  has  done  this,  it  can  surely  do  it 
still.  What  has  been,  may  always  be  again ;  and  although 
it  must  be  admitted  that  the  Drama  of  the  present  day  is 
not  to  be  approved  or  defended,  still  I  believe  that  it  is 
even  now  working  its  own  cure,  and  that  before  long, 
the  full  glory  and  full  value  of  the  Stage  will  re- 
appear. 

Third  Speaker.— Sir  :  I  really  feel  some  difficulty  in 
following  my  worthy  friend  who  has  just  ceased  to 
speak ;  for  I  am  not  accustomed  to  such  peculiar  logic, 
and  such  extraordinary  metaphysics. 

The  first  argument  which  the  gentleman  employed  to 
defend  dramatic  representations  was  one  of  the  most 
striking  and  original  I  ever  j:*emember  to  have  heard.  It 
was  to  this  effect  :  That  as  there  exists  (whether  right  or 
wrong,  no  matter)  in  a  certain  class  of  the  community,  a 
"  taste"  for  dramatic  representations,  it  is  right,  nay,  it 
is  necessary,  to  gratify  that  taste.  Truly  this  is  very  en- 
tertaining logic ;  and  will  lead  us  to  strange  conclusions, 
I  imagine.  Sir :  I  have  been  credibly  informed,  and  by 
many  concurrent  testimonies  have  been  led  to  believe,  tliat 
there  exists,  somewhere  or  other  in  this  great  metropolis,  a 
somewhat  large  class  of  persons  facetiously  denom- 
inated the  "  light-fingered  gentry,"  who  have  a  "  taste" 
for  relieving  people's  pockets  of  silk  handkerchiefs, 
purses,  snuff-boxes,  and  other  trinkets  equally  desirable. 
Now,  according  to  our  friend,  this  taste  ought  to  be 
gratified.  Here  it  is,  and  we  ought  not  by  any  means  to 
oppose  it.  No  matter  whether  picking  and  stealing  be 
moral  or  not,  if  people  imll  pick  and  steal,  it  is  nothing 
but  fair  and  right  to  give  them  the  opportunity. 

The  gentleman  would  have  spoken  more  to  the  point, 
sir,  if  he  had  examined  the  taste  itself.  Though  perhaps 
the  course  he  took  was,  after  all,  the   wiser  one ;  seeing 


::-^kii 


HAS  THE  STAGE  A  MORAL  TENDENCY.  87 

that  the  examination  I  propose  would  only  have  brought 
him  a  more  complete  defeat. 

Why  is  this  passion  for  dramatic  representations  im- 
planted in  so  many  breasts  ?  Sir,  the  minds  that  harbor 
the  passion  are  minds  which  either  dislike  or  cannot  en- 
counter real  life,  and  therefore  seek  a  false  existence  in 
fictitious  performances.  Such  minds  are  countless,  and 
therefore  it  is  no  wonder  that  there  should  be  in  all  ages 
countless  favorers  of  the  drama. 

It  is  because  the  Stage  is  essentially  unreal,  sir,  that  I 
deem  it  detrimental  to  morality  ;  and  for  that  reason  it 
has  always  received  my  most  strenuous  and  decided  op- 
position. 

Fourth  Speaker.— Sir  :  I  think  that  the  explana- 
tion which  has  just  been  given  of  the  causes  of  men's 
X^leasure  in  theatrical  amusements  is  not  by  any  means  a 
wise  or  true  one.  The  first  and  chief  reason  for  the  taste 
seems  unquestionably  to  be  the  absolute  need  of  amuse- 
ment. The  mind  must  now  and  then  unbend  and  luxuriate 
and  the  gay  doings  of  the  theater  form  altogether  perhaps 
the  best  means  of  relaxation.  But  besides  this,  there  is  a 
great  mental  pleasure  provided  by  the  very  nature  of  the 
Drama  itself.  It  represents  life  and  nature  in  heroics^  and 
so  raises,  refreshes  and  restores  the  weary  and  depressed 
spirit  of  the  world-fatigued  and  careworn  spectator. 

It  is  this  that  to  my  mind  makes  the  Stage  a  moralizer. 
In  his  contact  with  the  world,  man  forms  a  low  and 
groveling  idea  of  life  and  of  his  fellow-men  ;  the  mean- 
ness, selfishness,  bitterness,  and  hypocrisy  which  he  sees 
around  him,  all  serve  to  contract  and  lower  his  estimate  of 
humanity.  But  the  Stage  shows  him  the  world  in  its  finest 
and  brightest  colors  :  brings  before  him  the  great,  good, 
and  glorious  of  his  species,  and  so  raises  and  elevates  the 
conceptions  which  he  had  previously  formed.  The  Drama 
gives  us  the  romantic  side  of  life,  and  thus  makes  the 
literal  more  endurable.     In  the  theater  we  quiV  the  sor- 


88  HAS  THE  STAGE  A  MORAL  TENDENCY. 

did  world  of  fraud,  semblance  and  ambition,  and  enter 
into  the  beautiful  realm  of  the  ideal.  Our  eyes  and 
hearts  are  there  feasted  with  purity,  loftiness,  and  hero- 
ism and  we  are  beckoned  by  the  models  of  goodness  there 
displayed,  to  tread  with  them  the  paths  of  virtue  or 
of  greatness,  and  to  win  a  like  renown.  Depend  upon  it 
that  the  Drama's  exhibition  of  bravery,  strength,  resolu- 
tion and  affection,  has  done  no  little  to  foster  and  nour- 
ish those  sentiments  in  the  hearts  of  the  spectators  who 
have  witnessed  them. 

Fifth  Speaker.— Sir  :  The  very  reason  which  the 
last  speaker  has  urged  in  favor  of  the  Drama,  is  to  me 
the  strongest  possible  proof  of  its  evil  tendency. 

The  speaker  described  the  Stage  as  the  representation  of 
life  in  heroics  ;  I  agree  with  him  that  it  is  so.  But,  sir, 
we  want  realities  not  ideals :  we  want  to  see  the  world 
as  it  is,  not  the  world  as  fancy  portrays  it.  The  admis- 
sion that  the  Drama  presents  to  our  view  idealities  in- 
stead of  truths,  is  a  knock-down  blow  to  the  Stage  at  once ; 
for  the  greatest  dramatist  the  world  has  ever  seen  has 
told  us  that  the  object  of  the  Stage  is  "To  show  virtue 
her  own  feature,  scorn  her  own  image,  the  very  body  of 
the  time  its  form  and  pressure."  As  then  it  is  admitted 
that  the  Drama  is  now  prostituted  to  improper  uses,  I  am 
at  a  loss  to  conceive  how  it  can  be  further  defended. 

And  these  said  heroics^  what  are  they  ?  What  sort  of 
heroes  and  patterns  have  we  on  the  stage  ?  They  are  con- 
querors, glory- seekers,  accomplished  villains,  stoics,  chi- 
valric  blood-stained  knights,  and  so  forth.  The  senti- 
ments they  utter  are  "ambition,"  "renowm,"  "honor," 
"  war,"  brute  "  courage,"  and  other  virtues  of  similar 
nature. 

One  of  the  great  heroes  of  the  Stage  is  Cato.  He  is  de- 
scribed as 

"A  brave  man  struggling  with  the  storms  of  fate, 
And  greatly  falling  with  a  falling  state,'* 


HAS  THE  STAGE  A  MORAL  TENDENCY.  89 

Stoical  iiidiffei^ence  is  called  **  brave  struggling,"  and 
cowardly  suicide  is  called  **  greatly  falling  !  "  A  pretty 
example  of  heroism  this,  to  a  world  prone  and  ready  to 
imitate  ! 

Lucius  Junius  Brutus  is  another  of  the  Drama's  he- 
roes. The  example  he  sets  us  is  to  order  the  execution  of 
his  sons  for  a  simple  act  of  disobedience  !  Very  refresh- 
ing and  elevating  this  must  be  to  a  tired  and  sated  mind ! 
Very  much  it  must  raise  the  spectator's  conception  of 
human  nature. 

And  this  is  a  fair  sample  of  v^hat  the  Drama  almost  al- 
ways represents  to  us.  Vile  passions  are  invested  w^ith 
the  garb  of  virtue,  folly  wears  the  aspect  of  wisdom,  and 
crime  is  clothed  with  the  attributes  of  greatness.  To  say 
that  the  Drama  might  be  pure  is  beside  the  question  ; 
what  the  Drama  is,  must  be  the  subject  we  debate  ;  and 
judging  of  the  Drama  by  what  we  see  and  know  of  it,  I 
think  we  cannot  hesitate  to  say  that  its  tendency  is 
clearly  toward  evil. 

Sixth  Speaker.— Sir. :  It  would  be  folly  to  deny  that 
a  great  deal  of  evil  exists  in  the  Drama  and  in  the  theater, 
but  I  think  it  equally  folly  to  affirm  that  the  evil  of 
dramatic  entertainments  outweighs  the  good.  Our  friend 
who  spoke  last  has  referred  to  some  of  the  bad  examples 
which  the  Stage  presents  to  us  ;  but  he  quite  omitted  to 
instance  any  of  the  good  ones.  Nay,  he  led  us  to  believe 
4hat  there  were  no  good  ones  ;  a  great  error,  as  I  shall 
attempt  to  show. 

I  instance  then,  Macbeth.  We  are  made  to  see,  first, 
the  generous,  brave,  and  successful  warrior,  "returning 
home  in  triumph  "  to  the  honors  he  has  won.  We  next 
see  the  specter  of  ambition  cross  his  path.  We  see  him 
parleying  with  temptation  till  at  last  it  conquers  him, 
and  forces  him  to  resolve  and  commit  a  foul  and  atro- 
cious murder.  We  then  see  him  invested  with  the  ob- 
ject of  his  desire,  the  purple  of  royalty.    And  then  the 


90  HAS  THE  STAGE  A  MORAL  TENDENCY. 

lesson  begins.  We  see  retribution  comes.  We  see  the 
sinner  stung  by  the  serpent  of  remorse  ;  hurried  on  by 
fear  from  crime  to  crime  ;  deserted  by  his  guilty  hopes 
and  weird  helpers  ;  and  at  last  dying  the  death  of  a 
hunted  brute.  Is  there  no  morality  in  this  ?  No  lesson  ? 
No  example  to  the  world  ? 

I  point  you  next  to  William  Tell.  Here  the  poet  makes 
us  see  the  hideousness  of  moral  slavery  ;  shows  us  that 
to  fight  for  freedom  is  at  once  the  duty  and  the  happi- 
ness of  man  ;  and  raises  up  in  Tell  the  patriot  whom 
chains  cannot  bind,  whom  authority  cannot  subdue, 
w^hom  death  itself  cannot  appall,  when  battling  for  truth 
and  right.  Who  will  deny  the  fine  and  pure  morality  of 
this  ?  Who  will  say  that  the  example  thus  presented  to 
the  eyes  and  hearts  of  men  wdll  fail  of  its  effect  ? 

In  Cordelia  again,  what  a  bea.utiful  and  affecting  pic- 
ture of  filial  devotedness  is  presented  to  us  !  What  heart 
can  fail  to  be  touched  and  improved  by  the  picture  ?  In 
prosperity  and  adversity,  in  madness  and  death,  this  af- 
fectionate child  ever  clings  to  her  wayward  parent,  and 
offers  an  example  that  we  may  be  sure  not  a  few  have 
followed.  <• 

I  might  instance  other  characters,  but  these  will  suffice. 
They  will  serve  to  show  that  the  Stage  is  not  that  promo- 
ter of  immorality  which  so  many  have  taken  great  pains 
to  prove  it. 

Seventh  Speaker.— Sir  :  The  last  speaker  has  con-  * 
founded  the    word  " Stage  "  with  the  word  "Drama." 
But  the  Drama  and  the  Stage  are  two  totally  different 
things  ;  the  Drama  consists  in  what  is  written  for  the 
theater,  the  Stage  is  what  is  produced  there. 

Now  it  unfortunately  happens  that  the  bright  and  good 
examples  to  which  the  gentleman  has  referred  are  just 
the  very  things  that  are  never  seen  upon  our  boards. 
Were  the  theater  always  to  exhibit  the  plays  of  Shake- 
speare, Knowles,  Otway,  Sheridan,  and  the  other  great 


HAS  THE  STAGE  A  MORAL  TENDENCY.  91 

dramatists  who  have  recorded  their  imperishable  works 
in  our  Hterature,  no  one  would  object  to  it.  But  unluckily, 
these  great  moral  writers  are  just  those  whose  works  are 
not  performed.  Directly  a  manager  produces  one  of  these 
moral  plays,  his  audience  deserts  him;  and  therefore, 
granting  that  the  works  of  these  writers  have  a  moral 
tendency,  it  is  evident  that  they  do  not  suit  the  Stage :  or 
in  other  words  morality  is  discountenanced  there,  because 
it  is  felt  to  be  out  of  place. 

The  question  for  us  to  decide  is  simply  this :  Are  moral 
plays  written  for  our  Stage — are  moral  plays  morally  re- 
presented there  ?  I  for  one  say  "No  "  to  this;  and  say  it 
advisedly.  I  appeal  to  all  who  hear  me,  whether  our 
stage  does  not  now  (I  do  not  say  in  every  instance,  but  as 
a  whole)  present  us  with  the  most  abominable  trash  and 
the  most  offensive  immorality  that  it  is  possible  to  con- 
ceive ?  Yapid  idealism  distinguishes  our  tragedy ;  low 
intrigue  and  disgraceful  amours  are  the  staple  commodity 
of  our  comedy;  nonsense  (adapted  from  the  French) 
animates  our  farce ;  and  the  exploits  of  highwaymen, 
pickpockets,  and  burglars  inspire  our  melodramas. 

If  any  one  wants  to  know  what  sort  of  piece  attracts 
most  at  our  theaters,  I  will  tell  him — "  Jonathan  Brad- 
ford," "Jack  Sheppard,"  or  "Tom  an^)  Jerry."  Any 
thing  that  has  crime,  red- fire,  murder,  robbery,  or  horror 
in  it  is  sure  to  draw ;  while  a  moral  play  is  represented 
to  empty  benches.  Let  me  not  be  told,  sir,  that  the  stage 
is  a  teacher  of  morals,  for  it  is  evident  that  men  will  not 
listen  to  the  charmer,  charm  he  never  so  wisely. 

I  have  said,  sir,  that  were  Shakespeare,  Otway, 
Knowles,  Sheridan,  and  our  other  gi^eat  writers,  always 
and  only  represented  on  the  stage,  I  should  not  object  to 
the  theater  for  a  moment .  But  when  I  say  this,  I  wish 
to  say  also  that  I  by  no  means  join  in  the  blind  enthusi- 
asm which  is  felt  for  these  writers.  Even  Shakespeare  is 
not  perfect.    The  murderer  Brutus  is  not  worthy  of 


92  HAS  THE  STAGE  A  MORAL  TENDENCY. 

honor,  although  we  are  led  to  think  so;  and  many  other 
characters  I  could  name  are  by  no  means  deserving  of 
the  esteem  he  claims  for  them.  In  like  manner,  Otway 
gives  more  honor  than  can  ever  be  due  to  conspirators  to 
his  favorite  Pierre ;  and  Sheridan  invests  the  gay  rake 
Charles  Surface  with  a  brilliancy  and  interest  which 
ought  never  to  attach  to  a  debauchee. 

Eighth  Speaker.— Sir:  Theatrical  entertainments 
seem  to  me  to  be  so  i^tional  and  natural  an  amusement, 
that,  until  a  stronger  argument  than  the  fact  that  they 
have  been  abused,  is  produced,  I  shall  certainly  support 
and  defend  them. 

The  universality  of  the  passion  lor  this  species  of  amuse- 
ment is  (in  spite  of  the  ridicule  thrown  upon  the  fact)  a 
strong  argument  in  favor  of  tlie  Stage;  for  pleasures  may 
always  be  made  moral  teachei^  if  they  are  -rightly  em- 
ployed, and  consequently  this  universal  amusement  is 
capable  of  being  a  universal  means  of  instruction  and 
profit. 

That  the  passion  is  a  natural  one  is  proved  by  the  fact 
that  so  soon  as  a  child  begins  to  think  and  act,  it  exhibits 
a  predilection  for  representing  by  identification  what  is 
passing  around  it.  Now,  sh*,  I  would  not  oppose  tho 
desire ;  for,  being  natural,  how  could  I  hope  to  overcome 
it.  But  I  w^ould  shape  it  into  proper  form,  direct  it 
toward  virtue,  and  so  insure  a  good  Stage  instead  of  an 
evil  one. 

I  said,  too,  that  the  passion  was  rational.  Man  is  an 
imitative  being,  and  meant  to  be  so,  for  he  learns  by 
imitation.  It  is  reasonable,  therefore,  that  he  should 
delight  in  the  representation  of  persons  and  things  in  the 
various  positions  that  fancy  can  invent.  By  witnessing 
these  representations  his  perceptions  are  sharpened,  his 
reflection  is  aroused,  and  his  sympathies  are  extended. 
He  learns  to  judge,  to  think,  and  to  feel ;  and  the  mimic 
world  of  imagination  serves  to  fit  him  for  the  real  world 


Has  the  stage  a  moral  tendencIt.  $S 

of  life.  He  is  thus  moralized,  not  by  homily,  but  by 
example.  He  carries  the  wisdom  he  acquires  from  tlie 
scene  of  fiction  into  the  sphere  of  fact;  and  the  sym- 
pathies which  he  feels  for  the  ideal  beings  of  tiie  Stage 
are  extended  to  the  actual  fellow-creatures  whom  he 
meets  with  in  his  daily  life.  For  these  reasons  I  approve 
of  the-  Stage. 

Ninth  Speaker  .—Sir :  The  arguments  of  the  last 
speaker  appeared  to  me  to  be  somewhat  strange. 

He  says  that  the  Drama  is  proved  to  be  a  rational  and 
fit  -amusement  for  mankind  because  children  show  a 
passion  for  it.  Now,  granting  his  fact,  I  am  compelled 
to  draw  an  exactly  opposite  conclusion  from  it.  To  my 
mind  it  seems  to  follow  as  a  necessary  consequence  that 
the  amusements  of  the  child  are  7iot  fit  amusements  for 
the  man.  Play  is  peculiar  to  children,  and  as  they  grow 
up  they  acquire  a  distaste  for  it.  Children  all  like 
pantomimes ;  but  will  any  man  of  sense  say  that  there, 
fore  pantomimes  are  fit  amusements  for  men  ?  The  pre- 
dilection of  children,  then,  are  rather  arguments  against 
the  Stage,  than  reasons  in  its  favor. 

I  object  also  to  the  last  argument  of  the  speaker.  He 
maintains  that  the  Drama  moralizes  by  example ;  that,  by 
exciting  our  sympathies,  and  sharpening  our  perceptions, 
it  prepares  us  to  feel  and  to  see  in  the  busy  world  of  life. 
I  cannot  admit  this.  I  believe  the  excitement  to  be  not 
real  excitement,  hxxi  false.  We  are  ^cited,  not  by  truth, 
but  by  falsehood  and  error ;  and  mostly  in  the  direction 
of  wrong  objects.  We  are  excited  by  false  shows  (such 
as  pity  for  blood-dyed  rufiians,  compassion  for  unreal 
suffering,  and  admiration  for  brave  villains)  until  our 
sympathies  are  overstrained.  We  cannot  over-estimate 
this  evil.  The  strained  mind  must  be  reacted  upon  before 
it  can  regain  its  equilibrium  ;  and  we  may  be  pretty  sure 
of  this,  that  h*  who  is  most  violently  affected  by  the 
fictitious  scenes  of  sorrow  and  distress  which  he  beholds 


94  HAS  THE  STAGE  A  MORAL  TENDENCY. 

on  the  stage,  will  be  the  first  to  repulse  the  poor  beggar 
who  craves  an  alms  from  him  as  he  goes  to  his  home. 
These  convictions,  sir,  lead  me  to  regard  the  stage  as  of 
immoral  tendency. 

Tenth  Speaker. —Sir:  The  Stage  was  objected  to  by 
one  of  the  gentlemen  who  addressed  us  because  of  the 
bad  character  of  the  performers.  Now,  without  attempt- 
ing to  defend  this  immorality,  let  me  just  point  out  to 
our  friends  that  other  men  may  be  quite  as  bad,  only  they 
may  not  be  found  out.  Actors,  being  public  characters, 
are  publicly  canvassed  and  criticised ;  and  thus  it  is  that 
their  faults  are  seen.  Besides,  it  should  be  recollected 
that  they  are  placed  in  circumstances  of  extreme  tempta_ 
tion;  and  any  persons  so  placed  would  doubtless  give 
way  as  they  do.  I  do  not  urge  this  as  an  excuse  for  the 
bad  conduct  of  the  actors,  sir,  but  simply  as  the  reason 
and  explanation  of  it. 

The  uses  of  the  stage  have  not,  in  my  opinion,  yet  been 
fairly  pointed  out.  Shakespeare  tells  you  its  direct  ob- 
ject— to  reflect  the  age ;  but  it  can  do  other  things  beyond 
this.  It  has  often  been  employed  to  still  popular  dis- 
content and  political  excitement.  Brutus,  by  engaging 
a  company  of  comedians,  and  throwing  open  the  theaters 
to  the  populace,  quieted  very  serious  disturbance  in 
Eome.  In  modern  times  the  same  practice  has  been 
resorted  to,  and  has  proved  successful. 

Further :  The  Stage  is  very  useful  to  expose  and  sati- 
rize the  vices  of  the  great.  Where  there  is  a  court,  there 
are  always  parasites,  flatterers,  debauchees,  slanderers, 
and  other  vile  characters  ;  the  Stage  offers  the  best  me- 
dium I  know  for  holding  up  these  persons  to  public  de- 
rision and  reproof. 

Another  great  merit  of  the  Stage  is,  that  it  is  the  sole 
national  school  of  elocution,  it  is  only  in  t^e  theater  that 
we  meet  with  models  whom  we  can  safely  follow  in  the 
art  of  speech  ;  and  this,  at  a  time  when  the  power  of 


HAS  THE  STAGE  A  MORAL  TENDENCY.  95 

speech  is  so  useful  and  valuable,  is,  I  conceive,  a  great 
argument  in  favor  of  the  stage . 

Eleventh  Speaker. — Sir:  The  early  arguments  that 
were  brought  forward  in  this  debate  in  proof  of  the  mor- 
ality of  the  Stage,  had,  I  must  confess,  some  little  weight ; 
but  the  reasons  since  urged  have  become  *'  small  by  de- 
grees and  beautifully  less;"  just  as  the  wine  grows 
worse  and  worse  at  a  cheap  feast. 

The  arguments  of  the  last  speaker  certainly  are  the 
poorest  of  all  that  I  have  heard  ;  let  us  look  at  them. 

He  first  says  that  the  admitted  immorality  of  the  ac- 
tors is  excusable  because  they  are  public  men ;  and  be- 
cause if  other  people  were  placed  in  the  same  position, 
they  would  be  guilty  of  the  same  crimes.  "Why,  this 
just  proves  our  position  for  us ;  it  is  one  of  the  strongest 
arguments  against  the  Stage  that  could  have  been  em- 
ployed. I  admit  that  if  other  people  were  placed  in  the 
position  of  actors  they  would  be  guilty  of  the  same  im- 
moralities ;  and  why  do  I  make  that  admission  ?  Be- 
cause I  see  clearly  that  the  Stage  has  a  tendency  toward 
these  immoralities;  and,  must,  in  fact,  produce  them. 
Dr.  Johnson  was  forced  to  confess  that  the  allurements 
of  the  Stage  were  too  much  for  his  virtue ;  and  millions 
besides  Doctor  Johnson  have  admitted  and  exemplified 
this  truth.  In  the  vices  of  the  actors,  sir,  there  is  noth- 
ing but  necessary  cause  and  effect. 

The  gentleman  said,  secondly,  that  the  Stage  can  be 
used  to  still  political  excitement.  I  will  tell  my  friend 
an  anecdote.  When  the  terrible  atrocities  of  the  Eeign 
of  Terror  were  taking  place  in  the  September  of  the 
French  Revolution,  Robespierre  and  his  associates  caused 
all  the  theaters  to  be  opened  free  of  charge.  This  had 
the  eflPect  of  diverting  the  popular  mind,  and  so  the 
fiendish  murders  were  passed  over  without  concern,  in- 
stead of  raising  a  shout  of  execration  that  should  have 
shaken  the  heavens.    The  use  of  the  theater  then  is  to 


D6  HAS  THE  STAGE  A  MORAL  TEl^DENCY. 

stifle  man's  natural  sense  of  justice,  and  to  send  his  moral 
feelings  to  sleep. 

Lastly :  We  learned  that  the  Stage  is  useful  as  a  school 
of  elocution.  Sir,  we  do  not  want  a  national  school  of 
elocution.  So  long  as  there  are  natural  passions,  feel- 
ings, and  emotions  in  the  human  mind,  so  long  will  Na- 
ture teach  us  how  to  express  them  ;  and  when  there  are 
no  such  passions,  feelings,  and  emotions,  we  shall  not 
want  the  instruction.  Nay,  does  not  the  actor  himself 
copy  his  art  from  Nature?  Surely  then  if  the  great  orig- 
inal remains,  we  need  not  be  very  anxious  about  the  im- 
itation. 

Twelfth  Speaker.— Sir:  Although  I  admit  that  I  am 
no  great  admirer  of  the  Stage  as  we  behold  it  in  the  pres- 
ent day,  I  yet  think  there  are  some  sound  arguments  in 
its  favor  as  an  abstract  amusement. 

The  Stage  has  been  objected  to  because  it  is  abused. 
Now,  with  some  of  the  speakers  who  have  gone  before 
me,  I  cannot  think  this  fair.  It  should  be  looked  at  in 
the  abstract ;  and  if  its  design  and  object  were  candidly 
examined  I  feel  sure  that  we  must  admit  that  the  Stage 
might  be  made  one  of  the  noblest  moral  teachers  we 
could  possess.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  might  be  made  our 
purest  moral  school. 

We  should  not  forget  the  debt  we  owe  to  the  Stage.  It 
elevated  Grecian  society,  it  purified  Roman  morals,  it 
taught  our  ignorant  people  Teligion  through  its  ' '  myste- 
ries "  and  '*  moralities,"  and  through  Shakespeare  it  pre- 
sented the  world  with  the  noblest  volume  of  truth  and 
wisdom  that  uninspired  man  ever  wrote. 

I  would  further  defend  the  Stage  upon  the  ground 
that  light  amusements  of  the  nature  of  which  the  Drama 
provides,  are  necessary  for  the  relief  and  diversion  of 
men's  minds.  The  most  trifling,  and  indeed  in  them- 
selves most  ridiculous  amusements  have  been  resorted  to, 
by  the  greatest  men,  for  mere  relaxation.    A  celebrated 


HAS  THE  STAGE  A  MORAL  TENDENCY.  97 

king  of  Greece  rode  on  hobby-horses  with  his  children ; 
a  renowned  English  earl  used  to  play  at  marbles  with  his 
sons;  and  the  naturalist  Buffon  used  to  jump  over  the 
stools  and  chairs  in  his  study.  This  will  show  that  the 
mind  must  and  will  be  unbent;  and  now  I  ask,  what 
amusement  is  there  that  will  compare  with  the  Drama? 
I  will  here  leave  the  subject,  as  I  think  it  has  now  been 
fully  discussed. 

Opener  (in  reply).— Sir:  I  shall  not  trespass  long  upon 
your  time  in  reply.  My  opinions  on  this  subject  have 
undergone  no  change,  but  have  been  entirely  confirmed 
by  the  debate  which  has  taken  place. 

While  I  readily  admit  that  the  Stage  has  been,  and 
might  be  again,  a  useful  moral  teacher,  I  am  still  pre- 
pared to  maintain  that  the  Stage,  as  it  is,  is  most  objec- 
tionable, and  immoral  in  its  tendencies ;  it  excites  and 
demoralizes  far  more  than  it  elevates. 

Immoral  productions,  immoral  actors,  immoral  ad- 
juncts, and  immoral  auditors,  form  the  undeniable  con- 
comitants of  the  Drama  of  the  day.  False  feeling,  false 
conclusions,  and  false  principles,  are  abundantly  gener- 
ated by  it.  It  is  the  cause  of  dissipation,  late  hours,  and 
other  evils  which  have  been  pointed  out,  and  therefore  I 
unhesitatingly  condemn  it. 

Only  one  of  the  arguments  employed  to  defend  the 
Stage  seems  to  me  to  have  any  weight  ni  it.  It  is  the  ar- 
gument that  we  ought  to  look  abstractedly  at  the  thea- 
ter, and  not  argue  against  it  because  it  is  abused.  I  do 
not  wonder  that  our  opponents  are  anxious  for  an  ab- 
stract view  of  this  matter,  for  that  is  the  only  way  in 
which  their  cause  looks  at  all  respectable.  But,  sir,  are 
we  not  justified  in  refusing  to  decide  the  question  in  this 
manner?  It  is  now  clear .  that  the  Stage  tends  toward 
abuse^  and  therefore  it  must  be  judged  through  its 
abuses. 

The  last  speaker  urged  that  the  Stage  is  defensible  on 


98  HAS  THE  STAGE  A  MORAL  TENDENCY. 

the  ground  that  trifling  amusements  are  necessary  for 
the  diversion  of  men's  minds.  I  quite  agree  with  him, 
sir,  that  the  stage  is  frivolous  amusement ;  but  I  do  not 
agree  with  him  that  therefore  it  is  a  fit  recreation.  The 
gentleman  quoted  some  examples  to  prove  his  point; 
but  what  were  they?  Why,  that  the  great  men  to  whom 
he  referred  actually  did  not  choose  the  Stage  at  all,  but 
other  and  more  innocent  amusements  for  their  relaxa- 
tion !     So  much  for  that. 

The  gentleman  further  said  that  the  Stage  is  a  moral 
school.  That  word  "  school,"  sir,  was  the  most  unlucky 
word  he  could  have,  chosen.  We  have  had  to  condemn 
its  lessons ;  we  have  had  to  condemn  its  teachers :  now,, 
let  us  look  for  a  moment  at  its  scholars.  If  you  want  to 
find  them,  go  to  the  lobbies  of  any  metropolitan  theater, 
and  you  will  see  as  dissipated,  as  rakish,  and  as  morally 
unclean  a  set  of  pupils  as  ever  existed  in  the  world.  If 
you  want  to  see  them  further,  try  the  nearest  Concert 
halls  or  Pandemoniums,  after  the  performances  are  over, 
and  there  you  will  find  them  carrying  into  pradiice  the 
high  lessons  they  have  learned.  ^t  • 

But,  sir,  I  must  conclude :  for  I  fear  that  I  have  al- 
ready taken  up  too  much  of  your  time.  I  simply  com- 
mit the  question  to  your  fair  decision. 


SHAKESPEARE  OR  MILTON.  99 


QUESTION    YII. 

Which  was  the    greater  Poet— Shakespeare  or 
Milton  ? 

Opener — Sir  :  It  will  be  readily  admitted  that  nothing 
conduces  more  to  give  the  mind  clearness  and  distinct- 
ness of  thought  than  the  practice  of  criticism  ;  and  there- 
fore it  will  be  acknowledged  that  I  have  proposed  a 
question  for  debate  which  is  calculated  to  afford  useful 
and  healthy  mental  exercise. 

We  are  to  judge  between  two  poets  ;  between  the  two 
greatest  poets  (as  I  believe)  that  ever  lived.  We  are  to 
say  which  is  the  greater  poet  of  the  two.  By  greater  I 
mean  altogether  larger-soided.  I  do  not  wish  to  know 
which  is  the  greater  in  any  particular  quality,  but  in 
the  sum  and  total  of  his  qualities.  The  question  will  now, 
I  think,  be  clearly  understood. 

I  wish  to  guard  against  one  error  :  the  error  of  judg- 
ing, the  poet  as  the  man.  It  is  between  the  works,  and 
not  between  the  lives,  of  these  two  writers  that  I  wish 
for  a  comparison  :  to  their  works  alone,  then,  let  us  re- 
fer. 

My  own  opinion  runs  in  favor  of  Shakespeare's  superi- 
ority. I  will  not  deny  that  Milton  may  have  soared 
higher  than  Shakespeare,  but  Shakespeare's,  if  not  so  lofty, 
is  a  more  extended  flight.  Milton's  genius  has  a  ten- 
dency to  concentration:  Shakespeare's  to  diffusion. 
Milton  flies  perpendicularly,  Shakespeare  horizontally. 
The  question  becomes,  therefore.  Which  flight  was  the 
better,  more  useful,  and  more  admirable  of  the  two  ? 

As  I  said  before,  I  give  the  palm  to  Shakespeare.  I 
think  that  his  vision  is  keener  and  truer  and  quicker  than 
Milton's.  Both  are  Poets  of  Humanity  ;  both  address 
themselves  to  universal  feelings  and  passions ;  but  Shakes- 
peare seems  to  have  known  the  human  heart  better,  and 


100  SHAKESPEARE  OR  MILTON. 

to  have  addressed  it  more  effectually,  than  Milton  did. 
This  appears  to  arise  from  the  fact  that  Shakespeare's  vis- 
ion was  direct,  and  perfectly  clear ;  while  Milton's  vis- 
ion had  to  pass  through  the  medium  of  his  imagination. 
Milton  rose  aloftr  from  the  crowd  of  men,  and  looked 
down  upon  them  as  through  a  microscope;  Shakespeare 
mingled  ivith  men,  and  saw  them  face  to  face.  Milton 
therefore  may  have  seen  erroneously,  while  Shakespeare's 
vision  must  have  been  absolutely  true.  He  who  sees 
through  a  microscope  may  perchance  'have  a  false  or  dis- 
torted lens  before  him,  while  he  who  uses  the  naked  eye 
is  liable  to  no  such  danger.  Thus  it  was  that  Milton's 
vision  of  the  world  was  less  true  than  Shakespeare's. 
Shakespeare  saw  clearly,  and  without  a  medium ;  Milton 
saw  through  his  imagination,  and  therefore  less  directly 
and  less  distinctly. 

I  have  argued  from  fact  to  theory  ;  now  let  me  return 
from  theory  to  fact.  Take  the  idea  of  the  world  and  of 
life  which  you  get  from  Milton,  and  take  the  idea  of  the 
world  and  of  life  which  you  gather  from  Shakespeare. 
Place  them  side  by  side ;  what  do  you  see  ?  Milton 
makes  Earth  a  grand  colossal  universe  of  thought,  and 
man  a  great,  theological,  metaphysical,  moral  Thinker 
and  Debater  ;  Sliakespeare  makes  the  earth  a  world  full 
of  busy,  active,  practical  life,  and  man  a  restless  Doer, 
working,  feeling,  hoping,  despairing,  replete  with  energy, 
intelligence,  and  passion.  In  a  word,  man  is  with  Mil- 
ton an  imaginary  being  ;  with  Shakespeare  a  real  one. 
Milton  gives  us  man  as  he  would  have  made  him; 
Shakespeare  portrays  him  as  he  is. 

This  is  all  I  wish  to  say  upon  this  sub ject  f  or  the  present. 

Second  Speaker.— Sir  :  I  regard  Milton  as  the  greater 
Poet  of  the  two. 

I' do  so  because  I  think  that  in  the  quality  of  Imagina- 
tion he  is  decidedly  superior  ;  and  Imagination  is,  in  my 
opinion,  the  highest  quality  a  Poet  can  display. 


SHAKESPEARE  OR  MlLTOK  101' 

The  great  poem  of  Paradise  Lost  is  the  instance  I  select 
in  proof. 

The  very  conception  of  tnis  extraordinary  work  is  suffi- 
cient to  stamp  Milton  as  the  iirst  of  Poets. 

"  To  vindicate  eternal  Providence, 
And  justify  the  ways  of  God  to  man," 

is  an  idea  that  only  the  highest  style  of  mind  could  have 
conceived.  And  the  execution  of  the  idea  is  as  wonder- 
ful as  the  conception  of  it.  Eden,  Earth,  Hell,  and 
Heaven,  are  in  turn  presented  to  us,  and  described  with 
a  vividness,  distinctness  and  force,  which  we  look  for  in 
vain  in  any  other  writer. 

It  is  said  that  Milton  was  incorrect  in  his  description  of 
human  life  and  character  ;  but  surely  the  critics  who  say 
so  must  have  forgotten  the  masterly  and  touching  delin- 
eation which  he  has  given  us  of  our  First  Parents  in  Par- 
adise. Any  thing  more  purely  beautiful  I  cannot  con- 
ceive. The  untainted  souls  of  the  new-created  pair,  their 
innocent  delight  in  the  new  scene  spread  before  them, 
their  deep  mutual  love,  the  love  of  young,  unworn,  un- 
exhausted hearts,  the  freshness,  quiet  sweetness,  and  un- 
clouded love  lines  of  Eden,  form  the  most  surpassingly 
beautiful  and  delightful  picture  that  poetry  ever  con- 
ceived. I  know  not  wliere,  save  in  Holy  Writ,  the  tired 
spirit  of  man  may  find  such  soothing  rest  and  consola- 
tion as  in  the  Paradise  of  Milton.  The  contrast  of  its 
deep  unrutBed  peace  with  the  storms  of  life  gives  to  this 
portion  of  the  poem  a  charm  which  no  other  work  that 
I  know  of  possesses. 

The  imagination  that  produced  this  work  is  second  to 
none  on  earth. 

Third  Speaker.— Sir  :  I  am  not  disposed  to  deny  that 
Imagination  is  the  highest  quality  a  Poet  can  possess;  al- 
though perhaps  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  argue  with 
success  that  the  power  of  describing  the  Actual  is  quite 


102  SBTAkES^KRt  OR  MILTON. 

as  great  as  the  power  of  describing  the  Possible  or  Im- 
agined. But  I  am  disposed  to  deny  that  Milton  possesses 
this  quality  more  eminently  than  Shakespeare. 

Milton  has  imagined  Paradise ;  Shakespeare  has  imagin- 
ed Fairy -land.  Milton  has  imagined  Satan ;  Shakespeare 
has  imagined  Ariel  and  the  Weird  Sisters.  The  super- 
natural is,  indeed,  common  ground  to  both,  and  each 
treads  it  with  equal  propriety.  Milton's  power  herein 
has  been  noticed ;  now  let  us  glance  at  Shakespeare's. 
Consider,  then,  the  exquisite  chasteness  and  perfect  keep- 
ing of  Shakespeare's  supernatural  pictures ;  whether  of 
Oberon  and  Fairy-land,  or  Hecate  and  Witchland. 

Whether  it  be  the  Fairy 

'*  Hanging  a  pearl  ia  every  cowslip's  ear ;" 

or  whether  it  be  PucJc 


or  Titania 


**  Wholl  put  a  girdle  round  about  the  earth 
In  forty  minutes  ;'* 


*  Upon  the  beached  margin  of  the  sea. 
Dancing  her  ringlets  to  the  whistling  wind }  * 


or  the  Witches^  who 

*♦  Hover  tlirougli  the  fog  and  filthy  air ;" 

or  the  Ghost 

**  Whose  grim  portentous  figure 
Walks  armed  through  the  night  ;'* 

all  these  conceptions  are  as  masterly  and  true  as  the 
mind  of  poet  ever  conceived,  and  place  Shakespeare  at 
once  in  the  very  highest  rank  as  an  imaginative  writer. 

And  while  Shakespeare's  imagination  is  as  high  as  Mil- 
ton's it  is  much  wider.     His 

*•  Poet's  eye,  in  a  fine  frenzy  rolling, 
Glances  from  heaven  to  earth,  from  earth  to  heaven  ;'* 

and  embraces  the  whole  universe.   I  hold,  therefore,  that 


SHAKESPEARE  OR  MILTON.  103 

Shakespeare's  imagination  is  at  least  equal,  and  possibly 
superior,  to  Milton's. 

Fourth  Speaker. — Sir :  It  is  said  that  Milton's  imagi- 
native  power,  if  as  great,  is  not  so  grasping  and  universal, 
as  Shakespeare's.  I  do  not  admit  this ;  for  granting  that 
his  creative  power  is  but  rarely  applied  to  Shakespeare's 
great  domain,  the  human  heart ;  it,  on  the  other  hand, 
ascends  to  other  subjects  which  even  Shakespeare  never 
reached.  ' '  Winged  with  his  angelic  power,  Milton  swept 
through  the  realms  of  time  and  space;  veiled  his  face  be- 
fore the  throne  of  God,  o»  stood  in  the  council  of  Pande- 
monium; floated  in  chaos,  or  walked  with  Adam  in 
Paradise."  I  say  again,  Shakespeare  never  rose  so  high  as 
this. 

But  the  opener  truly  told  us  that  we  were  not  to  judge 
by  one  quality  alone ;  let  us  look  at  some  of  the  other 
distinguishing  characteristics,  then,  of  these  two  great 
writers.  Milton's  exquisite  style  and  fine  power  of  des- 
cription ought  not  to  be  forgotten ;  here,  I  think,  he  more 
than  rivals  Shakespeare.     Mark  the  beauty  of  this : 

•'  Now  morn,  her  rosy  steps  ia  the  eastern  clime 
Advancing,  sowed  the  earth  with  onent  pearl." 

Equally  fine  is  his  description  of  Adam :' 

"  His  fair  large  front  and  eye  sublime  declared 
Absolute  rule  ;  -and  hyacinthine  locks 
Round  from  his  parted  forelock  manly  hung 

Clustering." 

Nor  let  us  pass  without  notice  Milton's  power  over  the 
feelings.  In  Paradise  Lost  there  are  touches  of  pathos 
never  surpassed.  I  would  instance  particularly  Eve's 
penitent  reply  to  Adam's  upbraidings,  when  she 

"  with  tears  that  ceased  not  flowing, 
And  tresses  all  disordered,  at  his  feet 
Fell  humble  ;  and  embracing  them,  besought 
His  peace." 

Mark  also  Satan's  attempt  to  address  the  legions  of  Hell: 


104  SHAKESPEARE  OR  MILTON. 

"Thrice  he  assay 'd,  and  thrice,  in  epite  of  scorn, 
Tears  Buch  as  angels  weep  burst  forth :  at  last 
Words,  interwove  with  sighs,  found  out  their  way." 

Comment  upon  this  fine  passage  would  be  superfluous, 
and  I  shall  say  no  more. 

Fifth  Speaker.— I  am  of  opinion  that  in  the  chief  po- 
etical quality,  Imagination,  the  two  poets  before  us  are 
equally  great.  Milton  has  risen  higher  than  Shakespeare ; 
Shakespeare  has  flown  wider  than  Milton.  Milton  could 
well  have  been  more  universal ;  Shakespeare  could  not 
with  perfect  ease  have  been  loftier. 

But  as  to  the  other  qualities  which  constitute  a  poet,  I 
think  that  Shakespeare  was  decidedly  the  more  highly 
gifted.  The  last  speaker  has  instanced  the  descriptive 
power  and  the  pathos  of  Milton ;  but  it  seems  to  me  that 
in  both  these  faculties  Shakespeare  is  the  greater  of  the 
two. 

There  is  nothing  in  Milton  to  compare  for  a  moment 
with  the  living  beauty  of  that  line  spoken  by  Lorenzo : 

"  How  eweet  the  moonlight eleeps  upon  this  bank."  ^ 

This  is,  in  my  opinion,  the  most  perfect  picture  ever  pre- 
sented in  words.  In  Shakespeare's  Works,  as  Hazlitt  says, 
there  is  ' '  such  force  and  distinctness  of  description  that 
a  word,  an  epithet,  paints  a  whole  scene,  or  throws  us 
back  whole  years  in  the  history  of  the  person  repre- 
sented." 

And  as  to  pathos,  I  think  that  our  friend  was  exceed 
ingly  unwise  to  challenge  the  comparison.  I  grant  the 
great  beauty  of  the  instances  presented  to  us ;  but  I  find 
greater  beauty  by  far  in  the  pathos  of  Shakespeare.  I  point 
to  Learns  recognition  of  Cordelia  in  his  madness,  with 
her  reply;  to  Macduff^ s  grief  at  the  slaughter  of  his  chil- 
dren; to  Ophelia^ s  pathetic  lamentations  for  her  father, 
and  her  death ;  to  the  wild  agony  of  the  bereaved  Con- 
stance; to  the  simple  remonstrances  of  Desdemona  on 


SHAKESPEARE  OR  MILTON.  105 

her  death-bed;  to  Antonyms  burst  of  passionate  grief 
over  the  body  of  Coesar;  and  to  Othello's  intense  and 
heart-broken  misery  when  he  is  made  to  believe  that  his 
wife  is  false  to  him.  Any  of  these  instances  is,  to  my 
mind,  quite  sufficient  to  establish  the  superiority  of  the 
pathos  of  Shakespeare  over  that  of  Milton. 

Sixth  Speaker.— Sir:  A  very  important  test  by  which 
this  question  may  be  fairly  tried  has  not  yet  been  alluded 
to;  and  by  your  permission  I  will  here  set  it  up.  I  mean 
the  moral  effect  these  writers  have  produced  upon  the 
world.  This  will  be  a  fair  gauge  of  their  respective  pow- 
ers ;  for  effects  are  always  the  measures  of  their  causes. 
Now  it  seems  to  me  that  Shakespeare  has  done  more  serv- 
ice to  humanity  than  any  other  writer  ever  born  into  the 
world.  Through  the  whole  natural  and  mental  universe 
his  spirit  has  ranged,  and  whatever  it  has  touched  it  has 
illuminated.    He  has  shown 

"  Virtue  her  owa  feature,  aud  scorn  her  own  image ;  *• 

he  has  reached  **  Imagination's  airy  height,"  sounded  the 
lowest  depths  of  Passion,  trodden  every  path  of  life,  and 
acquainted  us  with  every  kind  of  human  experience. 
There  seems  not  a  thought,  not  a  pang,  not  a  pleasure, 
not  a  sentiment,  not  a  truth  connected  with  humanity 
that  Shakespeare  has  not  felt  and  spoken.  He  has  illu- 
minated for  us  the  whole  Past ;  he  "  has  turned  the  globe 
round,  and  surveyed  the  generations  of  men  and  the  in- 
dividuals as  they  passed,  with  their  different  concerns, 
passions,  follies,  vices,  actions,  and  motives;"  he  has 
left  us  pictures'  of  undying  beauty,  to  elevate,  refine  and 
refresh  us  ,•  he  has  handed  down  to  us  a  nobler  monu- 
ment of  wisdom  than  is  to  be  found  in  the  works  of  all 
our  philosophers ;  and  he  has  erected  for  us  a  code  of 
truth  and  morals  which  surpasses  all  that  the  world's 
statesmen  have  ever  given  us. 
How  can  we  calculate  the  effect  of  such  a  soul  upon 


106  SHAKESPEARE  OR  MILTON. 

the  world  ?  None  but  a  spirit  similarly  gifted  could  hope 
to  show  how,  through  its  subtle  agency,  the  mysterious 
sympathies  of  man  have  been  secretly  and  indissolubly 
linked  to  the  whole  universe  of  life ;  could  hope  to  fol- 
low the  high  thoughts  it  has  created  through  their  puri- 
fying and  regenerating  mission ;  or  to  estimate  the  life- 
giving  influences  of  those  radiations  from  the  eternal 
star  of  beauty  which  it  has  conducted  from  the  heavens 
to  the  earth.  The  mind  instinctively  shrinks  from  full 
inquiry,  for  it  f eels^  that  only  infinity  can  answer  it. 

Seventh  Speaker. —Sir:  I  think  Milton  is  a  greater 
poet  than  Shakespeare,  because  his  aim  is  higher.  In 
Shakespeare  we  see  the  divine  spirit  of  Poetry  circling  the 
whole  human  world,  and  identifying  itself  with  every 
possible  combination  of  human  circumstance,  of  human 
joy,  of  human  woe ;  in  Milton  we  see  it  spread  its  god- 
like wings  and  soar  into  the  world  of  Spirits,  connecting 
the  Human  with  the  Divine,  and  revealing  to  the  eye  of 
man  infernal  terrors  and  celestial  joys. 

In  Shakespeare  the  Supernatural  is  employed  upon  the 
affairs  of  our  mortal  nature,  and  has  ' '  its  be-all  and  its 
end-all,"  here.  Thus  in  Macbeth  it  is  evoked  t^  inflame, 
and  thr  n  to  torture,  ambition  ;  in  Hamlet,  to  spur  irres- 
olution ;  in  Richard,  to  terrify  guilt.  Shakespeare 
never,  or  so  rarely  as  to  warrant  the  word  never,  uses  it 
to  awaken  our  sense  of  Immortality,  or  to  arouse  us  to 
the  awful  realities  of  the  world  to  come.'  The  Christian 
reader  must  ever  mourn  that  our  great  national  poet 
should  have  neglected  to  string  his  harp  in  the  service  of 
Eeligion.  Religion,  indeed  (excepting  mere  natural 
religion),  Shakespeare  seems  hardly  to  have  known. 
But  Milton,  with  a  high,  solemn,  and  almost  prophetic 
earnestness,  makes  the  great  subject  of  our  Immortality 
his  constant  theme.  Creation,  Paradise,  Heaven  and 
Hell,  Man's  Fall,  Salvation  and  Destiny,  these  are  his 
mighty  subjects,  and  he  treats  them  with  a  grandeur, 


SHAKESPEARE  OR  MILTON.  107 

indeed  an  awfulness,  befitting  tlieir  sublimity.  Never, 
I  think,  has  the  human  soul  risen  so  majestically  as  in 
Milton. 

I  look  upon  the  theme  of  *'  Paradise  Lost "  as  the  most 
magnificent,  thrilling,  and  important  on  which  the  mind 
of  man  can  speculate.  It  is  the  commencement,  the 
first  act  of  that  tremendous  and  tragic  battle  between 
good  and  evil,  which  has  been  going  on  in  all  time, 
through  all  creation  ;  which  we  every  one  of  us  feel  to 
be  waging  in  our  souls,  and  which  is,  of  all  the  sublime 
and  awful  questions  that  can  engage  us,  the  most  neces- 
sary for  us  to  solve.  For  what  can  compare  with  it  ? 
On  it  hangs  life  or  death,  torture  or  rapture,  hell  or 
heaven.  It  comes  home  to  us  all,  and  must  be  answer- 
ed for  us  all  and  by  us  all  in  some  way  or  other.  Bid 
it  into  the  distance  we  cannot^  we  dare  not  ;  its  piercing 
voice  keeps  up  its  cry  until  it  gets  an  answer.  Happy 
are  ihej  who  find  the  right  reply  I 

Shakespeare,  then,  is  the  poet  of  our  Human  Life  ; 
and  Milton  the  poet  of  our  Immortal  Destiny  ;  and 
because  I  think  that  our  Divine  is  superior  to  our 
Human  part,  I  hold  that  Milton  is  the  greater  poet  of 
the  two. 

Eighth  Speaker.— Sir:  I  should  be  the  last  to  deny 
that  the  Immortal  must  at  ill  times  infinitely  transcend 
the  Perishable;  in  that  truth  I  fully  concur  with  the 
last  speaker,  but  I  cannot  agree  with  him  when  he  says 
that  Shakespeare  is  the  poet  only  of  our  Human  life. 

Shakespeare,  sir,  is  the  poet  of  Truth  ;  and  truth  being 
immortal,  he  is  therefore  tlie  poet  of  Immortality. 
There  is  no  writer  who  refers  more  constantly  to  the 
Eternal  rules  and  laws  of  God,  than  Shakespeare  ;  he 
recognizes  them,  and  acts  by  them.  He  tries  conduct, 
not  by  circumstance,  but  by  perennial  morality  ;  and 
considers  life  only  as  afl*ected  by  the  world  beyond  the 
grave. 


108  SHAKESPEARE  OR  MILTON. 

Macl)eth  affects  to  **  jump  tlie  life  to  come,"  but  is  ever 
held  in  fear  of  the  hell  he  merits.  Wolsey  is  made  to 
say  to  Cromwell 

"  Let  all  the  ends  thou  aimst  at  be  thy  country's, 
Thy  GocVs,  and  TrutJCs:'* 

Hamlet  is  made  to  bear  the  ills  of  life  by 

"  the  dread  of  something  after  death, 
That  undiscovered  country,  from  whose  bourn 
No  traveler  returns/' 

The  sense  of  Immortality  is  continually  appealed  to  by 
Shakespeare,  by  no  writer  more  so.  Constance,  even  in 
her  frenzy,  is  led  to  say  that 

"  When  she  meets  her  pretty  child  in  Heaven, 
She  shall  know  him." 

King  John  is  appalled  by  the  fear  of  the  doom  that  the 
awful  Day  of  Judgment  will  award  him  ;  indeed,  in- 
stances of  this  kind  are  too  numerous  and  well  known  to 
need  further  quotation. 

It  is  regretted  that  Shakespeare  says  nothing  about 
Religion.  Sir,  it  is  perfectly  true  that  our  great  poet  was 
no  theologian  ;  but  theology  is  not  religion  after  all.  He 
takes  no  trouble  about  creeds,  but  it  is  easy  enough  to 
see  that  a  more  really  religious  mind  never  existed. 

We  have  seen  his  religion  in  his  Faith,  already.  Im- 
mortality with  him  was  a  conviction  strong  as  life  itself. 
We  may  also  see  it  in  his  fervent  Hope,  his  Belief  in 
Goodness  and  in  Truth  ;  we  see  it  lastly  in  his  surpass- 
ing Charity ;  not  the  mere  charity  of  almsgiving,  but 
the  true  charity  of  heart  which  *'endureth  all  things 
and  hopeth  all  things  ;  "  the  charity  that  taught  him  to 
say 

*'  Forbear  to  judge,  for  we  are  sinners  all ; " 

the  charity  that  led  him  in  a  day  of  prejudice  and 
unkindness  to  defend  the  cause  of  the  oppressed  Jew  ? 
No,   never  let  it  be  'said  that  Shakespeare  had    no 


SHAKESPEARE  OR  MILTON.  109 

religion.  He  was  no  sectarian,  I  know  ;  very  likely  he 
was  charitable,  even  toward  heathenism  ;  but  for  all 
that  he  was  a  humble  and  devout  child  of  God. 

Ninth  Spe4KER. — Sir  :  Without  entering  into  the 
controversy  respecting  the  theological  excellence  of  the 
two  poets  before  us,  I  wish  just  to  say  one  or  two  words 
upon  the  question. 

There  seems  at  times  a  greater  force  in  Milton  than  in 
Shakespeare  ;  a  greater  intellectual  strength.  Who  can 
forget 

"  The  shout  that  tore  helPs  concave  ? " 
or  Satan's  form  as  it 

"  Lay  floating  many  a  rood  ?  " 

or  the  fallen  angels 

"  Hurled  headlong  flaming  from  the  ethereal  sky  ?  '* 

Perhaps  a  better  proof  still  of  Milton's  force  of  description 
is  to  be  found  in  his  account  of  the  Prince  of  the  Fallen 
when  he  calls  him 

"  Hell's  dread  commander  ;  who  above  the  rest, 
In  shape  and  gesture  proudly  eminent, 
Stood  like  a  tower, 

**  Paradise  Lost"  has  often  been  censured  for  its  want 
of  human  interest.  The  subject  should  center,  it  has 
been  remarked,  in  our  First  Parents  ;  while  by  the 
author  it  is  made  to  center  in  Satan.  Now  to  me  it 
seems  that  the  course  the  poet  has  taken  is  the  only 
natural  and  proper  one.  Milton's  design,  as  we  have 
been  very  correctly  told,  was  to  mark  the  entrance  of 
the  principle  of  Evil  into  the  world,  and  its  early  prog- 
ress in  the  soul  of  man ;  ihe  career  of  Satan  is  therefore 
the  center  around  which  the  whole  interest  revolves. 

And  never  was  there  a  greater  creation  than  this  of 
Milton's  Satan.  The  proud,  defiant,  all-daring,  all  en- 
during,  for-ever-fallen    archangel,  dauntlessly  braving 


110  SHAKESPEARE  OR  MILTON. 

the  darts  of  Heaven,  and  yet  eternally  burning  with  the 
inner  fire  of  self -reproach^  and  the  piercing  conscious- 
ness of  happiness  forever  lost,  is  the  sublimest  spectacle 
the  soul  of  man  has  yet  conceived,         , 

What  are  Shakespeare's  Witches,  his  Ariel,  his  Ham- 
let, to  this  ?  I  will  not  stay  to  make  a  comparison,  for 
the  objects  compare  themselves,  and  themselves  give  the 
verdict. 

Tenth  Speaker.— Sir  :  None  of  the  debaters  have  yet 
spok'en  of  Shakespeare  as  a  moralist,  a  character  in  which 
he  is  pre-eminent ;  and  which  I  believe  is  not  attempted 
to  be  fixed  on  Milton.  It  has  been  well  said  that  in  the 
writings  of  Shakespeare  "  there  is  more  moral  wisdom 
to  be  found  than  is  embodied  in  all  the  ethical  produc- 
tions of  our  country  put  together."  Let  us  take  a  few 
examples  ;  here  is  one  : 

*'  Sweet  are  the  uses  of  Adversity  .■ 
Which  like  a  toad,  ugly  and  venomous, 
Wears  yet  a  precious  jewel  in  his  head." 


Again  : 


Again : 


'  Not  the  king's  crown,  nor  the  deputed  sword, 
The  marshars  truncheon,  nor  the  judge's  robe. 
Becomes  them  with  one-half  so  good  a  grace 
As  mercy  does." 


"  O,  it  is  excellent 
To  have  a  giant's  strength  ;  but  it  is  tyrannous 
To  use  it  like  a  giant." 

What  magnificent  and  deep  philosophy  there  is  in  this  : 

"  We  are  such  stuff 
As  dreams  are  made  of ;  and  our  little  life 
Is  rounded  with  a  sleep!  " 

Here  is  a  moral  for  kings : 

"  For  within  the  hollow  crown 
That  rounds  the  mortal  temples  of  a  king 
Keeps  Death  his  court ;  and  there  the  antic  sits. 
Scoffing  his  state  and  grinning  at  his  pomp ; 


SHAKESPEARE  OR  MILTON.  Ill 

Allowing  him  a  breath,  a  little  scene, 

To  mouarchize,  be  feared,  and  kill  with  looks, 

Infusing  him  with  vain  and  self  conceit. 

As  if  this  flesh  that  walls  about  our  life    • 

Were  brass  impregnable  ;  and  humor'd  thus, 

Comes  at  the  last,  and  with  a  little  pin 

Bores  through  his  castle  wall,  and— farewell  king  I  '* 

f)ne  may  find  some  good  in  this  too : 

"  Glory  is  like  a  circle  in  the  water, 
Which  never  ceaseth  to  enlarge  itself, 
Till  by  broad  spreading  it  disperse  to  naught." 

But  I  fear  I  weary  you :  the  maxims  of  Shakespeare 
are  now  proverbs,  and  need  not  be  repeated  by  me. 

Eleventh  Speaker. — Sir:  Shakespeare  was  a  great 
moralist,  certainly;  but,  in  my  opinion,  Milton  is  very 
little,  if  at  all,  inferior  to  him  in  this  respect. 

Morality  proceeds  from  love  of  virtue  and  confidence 
in  goodness.     Hear  Milton  thereupon : 

"  Virtue  may  be  assail'd,  but  never  hurt, 
Surprised  by  unjust  force,  but  not  enthrall'd  ; 
Yea,  even  that  which  mischief  meant  most  harm, 
Shall  in  the  happy  trial  prove  most  glory  : 
But  evil  on  itself  shall  back  recoil. 
And  mix  no  more  with  goodness  ;  when  at  last, 
Gather'd  like  scum,  and  settled  to  itself. 
It  shall  be  in  eternal  restless  change 
Self -fed,  and  self-consumed  ;  if  this  fail 
The  pillar'd  firmament  is  rottenness, 
And  earth's  base  built  on  stubble." 

Again ;  hear  the  Spirit  in  Comus : 

"  Mortals  that  would  follow  me. 
Love  Virtue  ;  she  alone  is  ffee. 
She  can  teach  ye  how  to  climb 
Higher  than  the  sphery  chime  ; 
Or  if  virtue  feeble  were 
Heaven  itself  would  stoop  to  herl " 

How  exquisite  is  his  reference  to 

"  The  virtuous  mind  that  ever  walks  attended 
By  a  strong-siding  champion,  Conscience! " 


112  SHAKESPEARE  OR  MILTON. 

Milton  as  a  moralist  stands,  I  think,  extremely  high. 
He  is  utterly  free  from  prejudice ;  abjures  all  bigotry, 
dogmatism,  servility,  and  mental  slavery.  A  more 
thoroughly  independent  mind  never  existed;  conse- 
quently his  morality  is  never  tinged  with  the  pride  of  the 
Pharisee.  He  loves  virtue  for  its  own  sake,  and  maj^es 
no  boast  of  it.  He  may  not  pei'haps  have  written  so 
large  a  code  of  morality  as  Shakespeare  has  pro- 
duced, but  it  is  quite  as  pure,  and  quite  as  practically 
useful. 

That  character  of  Satan  has  been  of  wonderful  service 
to  us ;  it  has  taught  us  the  virtue  of  endurance  ;  and  had 
Milton  done  no  more  than  this,  he  would  be  deserving  of 
the  highest  honor  as  a  moralist. 

Twelfth  Speaker. — Sir :  I  am  not  quite  so  sure  as  the 
last  gentleman  who  spoke  seems  to  be  that  the  char- 
acter of  Satan  is  likely  to  affect  us  morally  or  bene- 
ficially. 

What  is  it  ?  A  fallen  angel  defying  the  Almighty,  and 
in  his  own  strength  enduring  and  scorning  the  Almighty's 
punishments.     We  hear  him  say  that  'tis 

"  Better  to  reign  in  hell  than  serve  in  heaven.'* 

We  are  told  by  him  that  into  hell 

**  he  brings 
A  mind  not  to  be  changed  by  place  or  time  : 
The  mind  is  its  own  place,  and  in  itself 
Can  make  a  heaven  of  hell,  a  hell  of  heaven.'* 

I  really  doubt  the  morality  of  this.  The  picture  seems 
to  me  likely  to  do  at  least  as  much  harm  as  good.  I  will 
suppose  a  man  far  gone  in  vice  brooding  over  these  senti- 
ments. What  would  be  the  result  ?  Why,  that  he,  like 
Satan,  would  say, 

' '  Then  farewell  hope,  and,  with  hope,  farewell  fear  I 
Farewell  remorse  1  all  good  to  me  is  lost : 
Evil!  be  thou  my  good!  " 


SHAKESPEARE  OR  MILTON.  113 

He,  too,  would  *'  disdain  submission ; "  and  in  his  despair 
"  defy  the  Omnipotent."  The  Satan  of  Milton,  the  Pro- 
metheus of  Shelley,  and  the  Cain  of  Byron,  all  seem  to 
me  to  be  alike  immoral  and  dangerous  pictures  to  present. 
They  are  all  represented  as  unconquered  by  the  Almighty, 
though  fallen ;  and  this  leads  the  mind  to  think  that  Evil 
is  too  strong  for  God,  and  can  safely  defy  him:  a  very 
dangerous  doctrine  to  teach. 

The  morality  of  Milton  always  appears  to  me  (even 
the  best  of  it)  to  be  of  a  vague  controversial  character; 
he  puts  forth  declamatory  arguments  instead  of  practical 
maxims,  and  tries  to  describe  Truth  instead  of  showing 
her.  In  a  word,  Milton's  is  the  morality  of  Intellect; 
while  Shakespeare's  is  the  morality  of  the  Heart. 

Choosing  between  these  two,  sir,  I  incline  to  Shake- 
speare; his  morality  is  indisputable,  while  Milton's,  how- 
ever pure,  is  always  open  to  controversy. 

Thirteenth  Speaker.— Sir:  Although  I  do  not  think 
Milton  so  great  a  Poet  as  Shakespeare,  I  yet  think  a  word 
or  two  may  be  said  for  him  as  respects  the  moral  influ- 
ence of  his  character  of  Satan. 

We  have  been  told  that  it  is  a  demoralizing  and  dan- 
gerous representation ;  that  we  are  prone  to  be  fascinated 
by  it ;  and  that  when  we  see  the  Arch-Fiend  braving  and 
heroically  enduring  the  vengeance  of  the  Almighty,  we 
feel  a  sympathy,  which  may  probably  become  an  ad- 
miration, for  him,  and  may  lead  us  to  imitate  his  fierce 
and  dauntless  bravery. 

But  it  seems  to  me  that  our  sympathy  fastens,  not  on 
what  is  evil,  but  on  what  is  good.  It  is  not  the  bold  and 
daring  defiance  of  the  Almighty,  but  the  uncontrollable 
power  of  mind,  that  we  admire ;  the  energy  which  makes 
soul  superior  to  circumstance ;  and,  as  a  great  writer  says, 
"Many  a  man  has  borrowed  new  strength  from  the  force, 
constancy  and  dauntless  courage  of  evil  agents."  Be- 
sides, the  horrors  of  Hell  must  counterbalance  its  pleas- 


114  SHAKESPEARE  OR  MILTON. 

ures,  even  in  tlie  mind  of  the  most  abandoned  calcu- 
lator. 

Milton's  mastery  over  the  art  of  Poetr^^has  not  yet  been 
noticed;  his  magnificent  blanic  verse,  his  "  linked  sweet- 
ness long  drawn  out,"  his  vigorous  and  polished  style, 
and  his  lofty  mode  of  thought.  All  these  are  qualities 
which  he  exhibits  very  remarkably,  and  should  be  taken 
into  account  when  the  comparison  is  made. 

Opener  {in  reply).  —Sir:  The  propositions  which  I  sub- 
mitted to  you  in  opening  this  debate  have  been  proved, 
rather  than  refuted,  by  my  opponents,  so  I  have  not  much 
now  to  say. 

As  far  as  regards  the  art,  the  mere  mechanism  of  Po- 
etry, Milton  may  have  been  superior  to  Shakespeare; 
Shakespeare  was  not  at  all  a  mechanist,  and  never  could 
be.  Still,  even  upon  this  point  it  must  be  borne  in  mind 
that  Milton  is  very  much  indebted  to  his  learning,  while 
Shakespeare 

"Warbles  his  native  wood-notes— wild." 

Take  away  Milton's  learning,  and  then  you  \Vill  find 
that,  even  as  an  artist,  he  is  not  so  great  as  Shake- 
speare. 

But,  after  all,  it  is  in  the  essential  qualities  of  Poetry 
that  the  poet's  greatness  lies;  and  these,  therefore,  are 
the  only  proper  tests. 

The  conclusion  to  which  this  debate  leads  me  is  un- 
questionably that  Shakespeare  possesses  these  qualities 
more  eminently  than  his  rival. 

In  imagination  I  hold  that  he  is  at  least  equal ;  in  pas- 
sion, he  is  far  superior;  in  perception,  he  is  immensely 
more  quick  and  intelligent ;  in  sympathy,  he  is  infinitely 
greater ;  in  intellect,  he  is  more  intuitive  and  clear ;  in 
ideality,  he  is  undoubtedly  more  serene  and  vivid ;  and 
in  the  aggregate  of  mind  he  is  more  united,  harmonious 
and  complete.      To  use  the  Vords  of   Dryden,  he  ' '  is 


THE  PRINTING  PRESS  OR  THE  STEAM  ENGINE.       115 

the  man  of  the  largest,  truest,  and  most  comprehensive 
soul  yet  born  into  the  world." 


QUESTION  VIII. 

Which  has  done  the  greater  service  to  Mankind— 
THE  Printing  Press  or  the  Steam  Engine  ? 

First  Speaker.— Sir  :  It  is  much  to  be  feared  that  as 
we  sail  along  the  great  and  ever-widening  ocean  of  civil- 
ization, we  forget  the  streams  and  sources  which  have 
helped  to  form  it.  It  is  but  rarely  that  we  look  back  and 
endeavor  to  estimate  the  influences  which  have  made  us 
what  we  are. 

Deeply  impressed  with  this  truth,  I  have  determined 
to-night  to  direct  attention  to  the  debt  which  we  owe  to 
two  of  the  greatest  causes  of  our  mental,  moral,  and  phys- 
ical improvement,  the  Printing  Press  and  the  Steam 
Engine, 

These  seem  to  me  to  be  the  most  important  inventions 
ever  made  by  man,  and  to  inquire  into  their  value  will 
doubtless  lead  us  to  extend  the  great  advantages  which 
they  confer  upon  mankind.  I  wish  to  know  to  which  of 
these  inventions  we  are  the  more  indebted  ?  and  the  best 
way  to  open  the  question  will  be  to  recount  the  benefits 
they  have  respectively  bestowed  upon  the  human  race. 

First,  then ;  what  has  the  Printing  Press  done  for 
man  ?  The  com pletest  answer  one  can  give  to  that  ques- 
tion is,  that  it  has  extended  knowledge.  The  consequences 
of  this  diffusion  of  knowledge  have  been  both  great 


116      THE  PRINTING  PRESS  OR  THE  STEAM  ENGINE. 

and  good.  The  consequences  have  been  good,  inasmuch 
as  they  have  imparted  to  us — I.  Information  respecting 
our  pliysical  frame,  which  teaches  us  how  to  preserve 
our  health  and  lengthen  our  life  ;  II.  Intellectual  infor- 
mation, which  enables  us  to  distinguish  between  false- 
hood and  truth,  to  profit  by  the  example  of  the  past,  and 
to  guide  ourselves  by  the  wisdom  of  experience  and  phil- 
osophy ;  and  III.  Moral  information,  which  shows  us 
good  and  evil,  teaches  us  the  beauty  of  virtue,  and  the 
value  of  religion. 

And  now,  what  is  the  nature  and  extent  of  our  debt  to 
the  Steam  Engine  ?  It  seems,  at  the  first  glance,  that  we 
chiefly  owe  to  it  the  extension  and  improvement  of  Phys- 
ical good.  It  has  cheapened  clothing,  food,  and  fuel; 
it  has  strengthened  our  houses,  and  lowered  the  cost  of 
building  ;  it  has  opened,  drained,  and  worked  new  mines, 
which  without  it  never  could  have  seen  the  light  ;  it  has 
enabled  us  to  travel  on  land,  at  a  rate  of  swiftness  well- 
nigh  incredible,  with  no  greater  fatigue  than  if  we  were 
sitting  in  our  parlors  ;  it  has  enabled  us  to  traverse  the 
sea  at  all  times  and  in  all  weathers,  in  defiance  of  wind, 
tide,  and  tempest ;  it  has  relieved  human  labor  in  every 
department  of  personal  fatigue  ;  it  has  introduced  us  to 
all  parts  of  the  world,  has  extended  commerce,  has  pro- 
moted the  mutual  interchange  of  produce  and  manufac- 
ture, and  it  has  made  man  practically  acquainted  with 
all  the  varieties  of  the  human  race. 

But  the  benefits  we  owe  to  the  Steam  Engine  do  not 
stop  here.  We  get  intellectual  and  moral  as  well  as  phys- 
ical, good  from  it. 

By  freeing  manual  labor  it  develops  mental  intelli- 
gence. It  gives  men  time  to  think  and  study.  Formerly 
the  great  personal  fatigue  men  underwent  in  the  course 
of  their  daily  labor  not  only  prostrated,  but  absolutely 
weakened,  their  minds.  This  excessive  toil  led  them  fur- 
ther to  desire  stimulants  to  sustain  them  ;  and  thus  it 


THE  PRINTING  PRESS  OR  THE  STEAM  ENGINE.       117 

mostly  happened  that  they  who  spent  their  days  at  the 
loom  spent  their  evenings  at  the  ale-house. 

The  Steam  Engine  has  helped  to  give  the  information, 
too,  which  it  left  people  leisure  to  desire.  It  has  made 
them  acquainted  with  facts  in  every  department  of  knowl- 
edge, and  has  enabled  them  to  see  and  judge  for  them- 
selves. 

I  said,  further,  that  the  Steam  Engine  had  extended 
moral  good.  This  will  now  be  felt  evident,  for  by  ac- 
quainting us  with  facts  it  leads  us  toward  truth; 
and  truth  in  science  will  soon  produce  truth  in  morals. 
I  will  now  leave  the  comparison  between  the  value  of  the 
respective  benefits  of  these  two  Great  Inventions  to  the 
meeting. 

Second  Speaker.— -Sir  :  When  the  opener  of  this  de- 
bate said  that  the  benefit  resulting  from  the  Printing 
Press  consisted  in  the  extension  of  knowledge  he  gave 
us  perhaps  the  best  reason  that  can  be  imagined  why  we 
should  vote  for  that  invention  rather  than  for  the  Steam 
Engine. 

Look  at  the  state  of  this  country  before  the  discovery 
of  the  art  of  printing,  and  then  at  it  a  century  after- 
njard  (when  its  value  had  become  appreciated);  and 
then  you  will  see  at  a  glance  what  it  accomplished 
for  us. 

The  world,  prior  to  the  time  of  Caxton,  was  sunk  in 
the  grossest  mental  and  moral  darkness  that  one  can  well 
conceive  on  this  side  of  barbarism.  Arts  and  sciences 
there  were  none  ;  even  the  simplest  rudiments  of  educa- 
tion were  unknown  to  the  common  people,  nay  even  to 
the  .nobles  ;  and  the  monks  and  priests  monopolized 
every  particle  of  information.  The  foulest  licentiousness, 
the  most  intolerable  tyranny,  the  wickedest  cruelty,  and 
the  most  detestable  fraud  and  violence,  existed  in  the 
land.  Murder  was  continually  perpetrated  in  the  open 
street ;  no  man's  house  or  life  was  safe  ;  the  worst  priu- 


118      THE  PRINTING  PRESS  OR  THE  STEAM  ENGINE. 

ciples  of  our  nature  were  in  active  and  deadly  exercise. 
We  must  add  to  this  lamentable  state  of  things,  the  fact 
that  all  orders  of  men  were  plunged  deep  in  superstition ; 
that  they  were  led  like  idiot  slaves  by  their  spiritual  mas- 
ters ;  and  that  religion,  save  in  its  penances  and  extor- 
tions, was  quite  a  sealed  and  hopeless  mystery  to  them. 
There  was  no  order,  no  peace,  no  morality  ;  but  crime 
and  ignorance,  like  two  hideous  monsters,  ruled  gloat- 
ingly over  the  chaos. 

But  as  the  sublime  command  of  the  Most  High  pene- 
trated the  original  chaos  of  the  universe,  so  did  the 
printed  word  of  knowledge  penetrate  the  chaos  we  have 
just  surveyed.  It  said,  "Let  there  be  Light,  and 
THERE  WAS  LiGHT ; "  and  when  this  Light  came,  men  saw. 

*'  Vice  is  a  monster  of  such  frightful  mien, 
That  to  be  hated  needs  but  to  be  seen,''* 

The  Printing  Press  showed  this  monster  to  men,  and  so 
led  them,  through  abhorrence,  to  avoid  it.  It  taught 
them,  also,  the  infamy  of  slavery  ;  slavery  of  every  sort, 
bodily,  mental,  and  intellectual.  There  is  something  es- 
sentially/ree  in  knowledge  ;  something  that  always  in- 
disposes the  mind  of  its  possessor  to  irrational  restraint ; 
and  this  may  be  proved  by  the  instance  before  us.  No 
sooner  did  knowledge  come,'  than  freedom  came.  In  the 
reign  of  Henry  the  Seventh,  Caxton  printed  ;  in  the 
refgn  of  Henry  the  Eighth,  personal  slavery  was  forever 
abolished  in  Britain.  But  it  was  not  the  mere  body  that 
was  freed,  the  mind  and  soul  were  unshackled  also. 
Great  intellects  arose,  and  liberated  men  from  mental 
darkness.  More  than  this,  Luther  came,  and  effected  his 
reformation  of  our  spiritual  creed.  Then  followed  Spen- 
ser, Shakespeare,  Burleigh,  Bacon,  and  Milton,  all  of 
whom  were  the  production  of  the  impetus  given  to  genius 
by  the  Printing  Press. 

I  think  I  have  said  enough  to  prove  that  the  Press 
must  claim  our  verdict. 


THE  PRINTING  PRESS  OR  THE  STEAM  ENGINE.       119 

Third  Speaker.— Sir  :  The  last  speaker  seems  to  have 
quite  forgotten  that  there  are  two  sides  to  the  question 
before  us  :  he  has  descanted  with  much  fluency  upon  the 
benefits  we  have  derived  from  the  Press,  but  he  has  not 
said  a  single  word  about  the  Steam  Engine. 

He  points  us  to  the  change  that  the  Printing  Press 
wrought  at  the  end  of  a  hundred  years.  Well !  I  can 
point  to  an  equally  amazing  change  effected  by  the  other 
invention  now  under  consideration,  a  change  wrought, 
mark  you  !  not  at  the  end  of  a  century,  but  at  the  end  of 
less  than  a  quarter  of  a  century  ! 

I  say  then  that  the  people  of  twenty-five  years  ago  were 
as  far  behind  the  people  of  to-day  in  knowledge  and  in 
freedom,  as  the  people  before  the  time  of  Caxton  were  be- 
hind the  people  who  lived  a  century  after  his  decease. 
Take  any  well-educated  young  man  of  twenty  years  of 
age,  and  compare  him  with  a  man  of  equal  capacity  who 
was  considered  well  educated  twenty  years  ago,  and  you 
will  find  my  point  proved  by  the  answer  to  the  first 
questipn  you  put  to  them.  If  your  question  be  in  history, 
the  reply  of  the  man  educated  twenty  years  ago  (if  he 
.  give  you  a  reply  at  all)  will  be  the  assertion  of  some 
fallacy  exploded  since  he  was  taught.  If  your  question 
be  in  science,  in  chemistry,  natural  philosophy,  mechan- 
ics, or  physiology,  it  is  a  thousand  chances  to  one  whether 
you  get  an  answer  from  him.  For  this  reason,  that 
when  he  went  to  school,  he  learned  reading,  writing,  and 
arithmetic,  and  that  was  all.  True,  he  hkd  an  occasional 
dip  into  Murray's  Grammar,  and  once  now  and  then  ac- 
quired a  page  or  two  of  Goldsmith's  History  of  England, 
as  a  task  ;  but  there  was  no  learning  in  that.  Now, 
however,  a  boy  i^  taught  at  almost  any  school  you  can 
send  him  to,  not  merely  the  common  rudiments  of  edu- 
cation, but  geography,  history,  chemistry,  mathematics; 
in  a  word,  all  the  useful,  and  many  of  the  exact  sciences. 
Add  to  this,  the  immense  amount  of  knowledge  resulting 


120      THE  PRINTING  PRESS  OR  THE  STEAM  ENGINE. 

from  the  vast  circulation  of  cheap  books,  peculiar  to  our 
time,  and  then  you  will  be  able  to  form  some  idea  of  the 
immense  increase  of  intellectual  knowledge  which  has 
taken  place  within  the  last  twenty  years. 

That  the  Steam  Engine  has  done  this,  must,  I  think, 
be  plain.  It  has  corrected  history,  because  it  has  enabled 
men  to  visit  the  scenes  of  history,  and  to  reject  from  its 
pages  things  that  were  physically  impossible  ;  it  has  pro- 
moted science,  because  it  has  in  a  thousand  ways  laid  the 
book  of  nature  open  to  the  eye  of  men ;  and  it  has  extend- 
ed information,  because  it  has  multiplied  the  copies  of 
wise  men's  works. 

I  think  that  the  honorable  gentleman  who  spoke  last 
will  now  see  that  the  silent  contempt  with  which  he 
treated  the  Steam  Engine  was  not  wise. 

Fourth  Speaker. — Sir  :  I  readily  admit  that  the^ 
Steam  Engine  has  been  of  signal  service  to  humanity, 
but  we  ought  not  to  forget  that  the  Printing  Press  was  the 
real  originator  of  many  of  the  benefits  apparently  con- 
ferred by  Steam.  Nay,  does  not  the  steam  engine  itself 
owe  its  existence  to  the  Press  ?  Had  it  not  been  for  the 
knowledge  disseminated  by  the  art  of  printing,  the  Steam 
Engine  would  in  all  probability  have  remained  unknown. 

Above  all  things,  we  must  not  forget  that  to  the  Press 
we  owe  the  printing  and  dissemination  of  the  only  true 
moral  law  we  have,  the  Holy  Bible.  This  divine  Book 
is  the  true  source  of  our  civilization,  after  all  ;  and 
through  it  alone  has  come  that  freedom  of  mind  and  body 
which  has  been  so  well  described  on  this  occasion.  Our 
improved  condition,  our  superior  knowledge,  and  our  in- 
creased morality,  are  due,  we  cannot  doubt,  to  the  wise 
teachings  of  the  sacred  Book;  and,  but  for  the  Printing 
Press,  this  precious  Volume  would  have  remained  in  the 
hands  of  the  clergy,  to  be  communicated  possibly  through 
a  false  medium,  presenting  to  us  as  much  error  as 
truth. 


THE  PmNTING  PRESS  OR  THE  STEAM  ENGINE.       121 

I  feel  tliat  this  one  argument  alone  is  sufficient  to  prove 
the  superior  advantages  .rvvhich  have  resulted  to  the  world 
from  the  Press  as  compared  with  the  Steam  Engine,  and 
I  will  not  weaken  my  cause  by  adding  feebler  reasons 
after  one  so  powerful. 

Fifth  Speaker. — Sir  :  I  will  not  attempt  to  deny  that 
the  Printing  Press  has  conferred  an  incalculable  avV 
vantage  upon  the  human  species  by  the  promulgation  ot 
the  Scriptures.  But  when  we  come  to  think  upon  the 
matter,  we  perceive  that  the  greater  part  of  this  benefit 
is  actually  owing  to  the  Steam  Engine !  The  Press  prints 
the  Bibles  but  the  Steam  Engine  distributes  them  ;  nay, 
it  is  actually  the  Steam  Engine  that  prints  them  !  It 
carries  numberless  copies  to  distant  lands,  and  here,  by 
its  application  to  the  Press,  it  so  multiplies  those  copies, 
that  where  there  used  to  be  but  one  Bible  there  are  now 
a  thousand.  Formerly,  the  cost  of  paper  and  printing 
was  so  high,  that  only  the  rich  could  afford  to  purchase 
the  Scriptures;  now,  no  poor  man,  not  even  the  poorest, 
need  be  without  them.  It  is  to  Steam  that  we  owe  this. 
Steam  makes  the  paper,  Steam  prints  the  book,  Steam 
circulates  the  copies.  Were  you  to  reckon  up  the 
number  of  Bibles  printed  by  hand,  and  the  number 
printed  by  Steam,  you  would  see  that  where  the  Press 
has  produced  tens,  the  Steam  Engine  has  produced 
thousands  of  Bibles.  However  great,  therefore,  the  merit 
may  be  that  is  due  to  the  Press  for  originally  giving 
us  the  sacred  Book,  a  greater  praise  is  due  to  the  Steam 
Engine  for  multiplying  and  circulating  it. 

Consider,  too,  how  the  Press  is  enabled  through  the 
Steam  Engine  to  inform  man  daily  of  what  is  passing  in 
the  world.  Before  the  application  of  Steam,  our  daily 
papers  were  no  more  to  be  compared  with  the  Journals 
of  the  present  time,  than  a  spark  can  be  compared  with 
a  blazing  fire.  But  now  Steam  collects  information 
daily  in  every  quarter  of  the  world,  daily  prints  the  news 


122      THE  PRINTING  PRESS  OR  THE  STEAM  ENGINE. 

it  brings,  and  daily  carries  away  again  into  every  quarter 
of  the  world  the  information  it  h#^  gathered  and  recorded. 
I  shall  vote  for  the  Steam  Engine  without  the  least 
hesitation. 

Sixth  Speaker. — Sir  :  It  seems  to  me  that  an  origina- 
tor is  always  more  meritorious  than  an  improver  ;  and 
the  present  comparison  appears  to  prove  this  most  par- 
ticularly. 

The  Printing  Press,  it  is  admitted,  first  gave  us  knowl- 
edge ;  now  the  highest  merit  of  the  Steam  Engine  seems 
to  be  that  it  has  carried  what  the  other  has  made  !  To 
argue  that  the  Steam  Engine  is  the  greater,  because  it 
has  distributed  what  the  Press  has  printed,  is  just  like 
saying  that  the  porter  who  carries  a  book  is  greater  than 
the  author  who  wrote  it  !  Surely  the  original  discoverer 
of  America  is  greater  than  the  captains  who  now  sail 
thither  ;  and  surely  the  originator  of  any  great  invention 
is  greater  than  its  mere  accelerator. 

Suppose  the  Printing  Press  had  never  been  invented, 
where  would  steam  have  been  then  ?  Or  suppose  the 
Steam  Engine  had  existed  without  the  Printing  Press, 
what  good  could  it  have  done  us  ?  Would  it  have  given 
us  cheap  Bibles,  correct  histories,  good  education,  and  all 
the  other  great  advantages  that  we  are  told  we  owe  to 
it  ?  No  !  it  would  have  improved  us  physically,  but  it 
would  have  left  us  just  as  mentally  and  morally  dark  as 
we  were. 

To  me,  just  as  the  one  Book  seems  the  source  of  all 
morality,  books  in  general  seem  the  source  of  all  knowl- 
edge and  wisdom.  Long  before  the  Steam  Engine  was 
dreamed  of,  books  were  civilizing,  and  moralizing,  and 
Christianizing  man ;  and  long  after  it  is  replaced  by  other 
inventions,  the  Press  will  continue  to  improve  and  exalt 
us. 

I  will  not  offer  any  further  arguments,  sir,  upon  this 
subject,  but  I  think  I  have  thrown  out  some  suggestions 


THE  PRINTING  PRESS  OR  THE  STEAM  ENGINE.       123 

which  will  not  prove  altogether  unworthy  of  considera- 
tion. 

Seventh  Speaker. — Sir:  A  great  writer*  has  said 
*'  that  there  is  nothing  more  wonderful  than  a  book." 
''  In  books,"  he  continues,  "  lies  the  soul  of  the  whole 
past  time.  All  that  mankind  has  done,  thought  or  seen; 
it  is  lying,  as  in  magic  preservation,  in  the  pages  of 
books."  And  it  is  this  truth,  doubtless,  that  has  led  so 
many  of  the  speakers  on  this  question  to  accord  so  great 
a  value  to  the  Printing  Press,  the  producer  of  books. 

But  surely  that  which  will  take  us  to  the  sources  of 
knowledge,  must  be  greater  and  more  beneficial  to  us 
than  the  mere  second-hand  record  oi  knowledge  !  Which 
is  the  wiser  man  ?  he  who  knows  from  actual  observa- 
tion, or  he  who  knows  from  reading  ?  Which  man,  for 
instance,  knows  France  better ;  he  who  goes  there  and 
sees  it,  or  he  who  reads  about  it  in  a  book  ? 

The  Press  w^as  called  by  the  last  speaker  *' the  source 
of  knowledge. "  It  is  not  so ;  it  is  the  source  of  second- 
hand knowledge.  The  Press  simply  leads  us  to  other 
men's  views  of  knowledge,  and  fails  to  give  us  actual, 
experimental  knowledge  for  ourselves.  But  the  Steam 
Engine  enables  us  to  go  to  the  sources  of  knowledge 
direct.  By  the  rapidity  of  its  movements,  it  carries  us 
from  place  to  place  in  scarcely  more  time  than  it  formerly 
took  us  to  read  about  them ;  and  we  now  can  see  for  our- 
selves what  we  were  once  obliged  to  take  upon  credit. 

The  result  thus  obtained  for  us  by  the  Steam  Engine 
must  be  Eminently  serviceable  to  truth  and  morality. 
From  books,  however  clearly  written,  we  do  not  get  ex- 
act ideas ;  the  Grreece  we  fancy  in  reading  about  it  is  quite 
different  from  the  actual  Greece  when  we  see  it.  Traveling 
corrects  the  errors  we  form  in  reading,  and  thus  clears 
the  mind  of  false  impressions,  and  fills  it  with  true  ones. 

♦Thomas  Carlyle. 


12i      THE  PRlNTrnG  PRESS  OR  THE  STEAM  ENGINE. 

Books  of  History,  Geography,  and  Travels,  whicli  once 
were  implicitly  relied  on,  are  now  found  to  be  full  of 
misstatements  and  mistakes.  Errors  of  topography,  soil, 
climate,  and  produce,  have  been  discovered  and  recti- 
fied ;  doubted  assertions  have  been  either  verified  or  to- 
tally disproved,  and  thus  truth  has  been  established  and 
extended. 

One  cannot  forbear  the  reflection,  that  if  the  Printing 
Press  has  promulgated  much  truth,  it  has  also  circulated 
much  error.  It  has  been  employed  to  record  and  pub- 
lish falsehood,  atheism,  blasphemy,  sophistry,  infidelity, 
and  vice  of  every  kind  and  shape.  It  is  true  that  we  owe 
to  it  our  knowledge  of  the  Bible  and  of  Shakespeare ;  bu4; 
we  also  owe  to  it  the  ^'  Age  of  Reason,''  and  Voltaire. 

If,  then,  we  sum  up  the  good  and  evil  of  the  Press,  and 
compare  the  total  with  the  unmixed  value  of  the  benefits 
we  derive  from  the  Steam  Engine,  we  shall,  I  think,  be 
led  to  decide  unhesitatingly  in  favor  of  the  latter. 

Eighth  Speaker. — Sir :  Our  friend  who  has  just  spoken 
has  referred  to  the  evil  (as  well  as  good)  that  the  Press 
has  generated.  Now,  the  Steam  Engine  seems  to  me  to 
do  some  evil,  too.  It  has  destroyed,  from  its  imperfec- 
tions, numerous  human  lives,  the  lives  of  those  who 
nave  either  tended  to  it  or  traveled  by  it  ;  and  thus  soci- 
ety has  been  injured  by  the  loss  of  its  members. 

Further,  it  has  superseded  manual  labor,  and  has  thus 
thrown  men  out  of  employment ;  it  has  supplanted  all 
kinds  of  industry,  and  therefore  has  deprived  millions  of 
the  comforts  they  once  used  to  earn.  This  wilL^o  far  to 
explain,  I  think,  the  awful  distress  that  exists  among 
our  manufacturing  population  at  the  present  time.  Hu- 
man labor  is  now  so  cheap  that  the  best  wages  will 
hardly  support  a  man  with  any  degree  of  decency  or 
comfort. 

It  is  said  that  the  Press  generates  error,  but  at  any  rate 
the  Steam  Engine  does  as  much  harm  by  circulating  it. 


THE  PRINTING  PRESS  OR  THE  STEAM  ENGINE.       125 

If  the  defenders  of  the  Steam  Engine  claim  the  good 
which  the  Press  does,  because  it  helps  to  print  and  dis- 
tribute it,  they  must  hold  themselves  liable  to  be  charged 
with  the  evil  too. 

Ninth  Speaker.— Sir:  The  Steam  Engine  is  charged 
with  destroying  human  lives,  and  also  with  supplanting 
human  labor ;  let  me  say  a  word  or  two  with  reference 
to  both  these  arguments. 

First,  as  to  destroying  human  life.  It  is  quite  true 
that  on  our  railways  and  in  our  mines  and  steam  pack- 
ets, great  loss  of  life  often  occurs ;  but  the  Steam  Engine 
is  at  least  less  chargeable  in  this  respect  than  the  contriv- 
ances it  has  superseded.  The  old  stage  coaches,  the  old 
machines  for  draining  mines,  and  the  old  sailing  vessels, 
were  the  causes  of  far  more  fatal  and  frequent  accidents 
than  the  Steam  Engine  causes.  It  is  capable  of  the 
clearest  proof  that  the  loss  of  life  (and  let  me  add,  of 
property)  is  infinitely  smaller  since  Steam  has  been  used 
as  a  working  power  than  it  was  under  any  former  sys- 
tem of  conveyance,  pedestrianism  included.  We  read 
of  accidents,  it  is  true,  but  they  are  few  and  far  between; 
while  coaches,  carts,  wagons  and  horses  were  formerly 
forever  doing  mischief.  A  man,  in  fact,  may  now  travel 
three  hundred  miles  along  a  railway  with  less  personal 
risk  than  he  encounters  if  he  walks  a  mile.  Besides,  the 
Steam  Engine  is  capable  of  being  brought  to  absolute 
perfection ;  every  accident  leads  to  some  new  improve- 
ment which  will  prevent  a  recurrence  of  the  same  sort 
of  accident  in  future.  Now,  the  old  stage-coach  and  sail- 
ing vessel  system  had  reached  its  perfection,  and  in  the 
nature  of  things  could  be  no  better  than  it  was.  This 
charge,  therefore,  fails. 

Besides,  the  Printing  Press  is  chargeable  with  a  much 
greater  evil ;  it  often  destroys  that  which  is  more  prec- 
ious than  life  by  far,  I  mean  reputation  and  character. 
The  gross  libels,  the  evil  slanders,  the  wicked  falsehoods 


126      THE  PRINTING  PRESS  OR  THE  STEAM  ENGIlTfi. 

to  which  the  Press  has  given  birth,  prove  that  it  is  capa- 
ble of  the  very  worst  effects.  Many  a  man  has  been  so 
falsely  condemned  and  atrociously  maligned  by  it,  that 
he  has  thereby  been  driven  to  despair,  to  madness,  and 
to  self-destruction.  Wherein  is  the  ioss  of  life  by  a 
Steam  Engine  worse  than  this  ? 

And  now  let  me  say  a  word  or  two  respecting  the  sec- 
ond charge  that  the  last  speaker  made  against  the  Steam 
Engine,  namely,  that  it  has  supplanted  human  labor. 
Sir,  I  deny  the  fact.  The  Steam  Engine  provides  more 
labor  than  it  supplants.  It  diverts  labor  from  old  chan- 
nels, it  is  true ;  but  it  opens  new  channels,  both  larger 
and  better.  The  making  of  railways,  engines,  carriages, 
telegraphs,  rails,  steam  vessels,  and  roads,  requires  an 
amount  of  human  labor  far  exceeding  all  that  the  Steam 
Engine  could  possibly  supplant.  Moreover,  by  putting 
us  into  near  communication  with  countries  which  once 
were  hopelessly  distant,  the  demand  for  our  manufac- 
tures is  increased ;  and  it  is  supposed  by  those  best  able 
to  judge  that  mor^  men  are  now  requird  to  superintend 
our  manufactures  than  were  formerly  employed  in  pro- 
ducing them. 

So  much,  then,  for  these  mighty  evils  ! 

Tenth  Speaker. — Sir :  In  the  Steam  Engine  I  see  the 
greatest  civilizer,  (Christianity,  of  course,  excepted)  that 
has  yet  been  introduced  into  the  world. 

It  is  the  greatest  actual  power  yet  known  ;  and  is  em- 
ployed in  such  an  infinite  variety  of  ways,  minute  and 
stupendous,  that  it  is  impossible  to  say  what  may  not 
hereafter  be  done  by  its  agency.  There  is  no  department 
of  production,  manufacture,  or  personal  comfort,  which 
it  has  not  extended  and  improved. 

It  is  a  moralizer  in  many  ways  ;  but  tjhiefly,  I  think, 
in  this  :  it  brings  the  various  members  of  the  human 
family  into  contact  and  relationship.  By  its  agency  we 
go  to  lands  hitherto  almost  unknown  ;  we  find  there 


THE  PRmTING  PRESS  OR  THE  STEAM  ENGINE.      127 

ignorant  and  barbarous  savages  ;  we  associate  with  them, 
we  teach  them,  we  civiUze  them,  we  take  them  our  Bible, 
we  tell  them  of  our  Holy  Father  in  Heaven,  and  at 
length  we  find  in  the  ignorant  savage  a  brother  and  a 
friend. 

The  facilities  for  traveling  which  the  Steam  Engine  af- 
fords induce  men  to  emigrate  toother  countries,  and  thus 
the  world  is  becoming  more  equally  covered.  Countries 
over-crowded  are  relieved,  and  countries  uninhabited  are 
populated.  Civilization  is  thus  carried  into  savage  lands, 
barbarism  is  supplanted,  heathenism  destroyed,  and 
peace,  comfort,  morality,  and  religion  are  led  into  the 
remotest  regions  of  the  world. 

Eleventh  Speaker.— Sir  :  In  spite  of  all  that  has  been 
said,  I  still  believe  that  the  Press  does  more  for  us  than 
the  Steam  Engine. 

Doubtless  a  man  can  now  go  more  easily  into  foreign 
climes  than  he  used  to  do  ;  but,  as  the  majority  of  men 
can  not  be  travelers,  the  book  which  records  the  descrip- 
tion of  other  countries  must  certainly  be  more  generally 
useful  than  the  machine  which  enables  a  man  to  go  to 
those  countries.  For  every  man  that  can  go  to  another 
country,  a  thousand  men  can  only  have  an  opportunity 
to  read  about  it  ;  the  book,  therefore,  does  good  to 
thousands,  while  the  voyage  only  does  good  to  individ- 
uals. 

It  is  quite  true  that  the  Press  publishes  error,  and  not 
a  little  of  it ;  but  the  evil  causes  the  cure.  Attention  is 
drawn  to  the  error  put  forth,  thought  is  roused,  the  false- 
hood is  detected  and  never  can  appear  again. 

When  I  call  to  mind  the  mighty  service  that  the  Print- 
ing Press  performed  at  the  time  of  its  invention  in  extend- 
ing religious  knowledge,  defying  bigotry,  and  bringing 
about  our  glorious  Reformation,  I  feel  that  our  debt  to  it 
is  incalculable,  and  must  not  be  forgotten  when  another 
claimant  of  merit  appears.   Excuse  me  if  1  quote  the  Ian- 


128      THE  PRINTING  PRESS  OR  THE  STEAM  ENGINE. 

guage  of  an  eminent  man  who  lived  at  the  time  of  the 
invention  ;  I  mean  John  Fox.  Speaking  of  the  art  of 
Printing,  he  says — "  Hereby  tongues  are  known,  knowl- 
edge groweth,  judgment  increase th,  books  are  dispersed, 
the  Scripture  is  seen,  the  doctors  are  read,  stories  are 
opened,  times  compared,  truth  discerned,  falsehood  de- 
tected, and  with  finger  pointed  out,  and  all  (as  I  said) 
through  the  benefit  of  Printing.  Wherefore,  I  suppose 
that  either  the  Pope  must  abolish  Printing,  or  he  must 
seek  a  new  world  to  reign  over  :  for  else,  as  the  world 
standeth,  Printing  doubtless  will  abolish  him.  But  the 
Pope  and  all  his  college  of  Cardinals  must  this  under- 
stand, that  through  the  light  of  Printing,  the  world  be 
ginneth  now  to  have  eyes  to  see,  and  heads  to  judge.  He 
cannot  walk  so  invisible  in  a  net,  but  he  will  be  spied. 
And  although  through  might  he  stopped  the  mouth  of 
John  Huss  before,  and  of  Jerome,  that  they  might  not 
preach,  thinking  to  make  his  kingdom  sure  ;  yet,  instead 
of  John  Huss  and  others,  God  hath  opened  the  Press  to 
preach,  whose  voice  the  Pope  is  never  able  to  stop,  with 
all  the  power  of  his  triple  crown.  By  this  Printing,  as 
by  the  gift  of  tongues,  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel 
soundeth  to  all  nations  and  countries  under  heaven  ;  and 
what  God  revealeth  to  one  man,  is  dispersed  to- many  ; 
and  what  is  known  in  one  nation  is  opened  to  all." 

These  fine  thoughts,  from  one  of  the  ancients,  may  not 
perhaps  be  thought  unworthy  of  the  attention  of  us  mod- 
erns. 

Opener  {in  reply). — The  conclusion,  sir,  to  which  we 
seem  to  come  is,  that  Printing  originated  many  of  the 
great  elements  of  modern  intellectual  and  moral  cultiva- 
tion, and  that  |he  Steam  Engine  has  diffused  and  ex- 
tended them.  It  seems  invidious  to  judge  between  the 
two  ;  and  it  appears  ungrateful  to  choose  the  last,  and 
pass  the  first  ;  but  yet,  I  think,  we  must  do  so. 

Where  the  Press  alone  has  benefited  one,   the  Steam 


THR  PRINTING  PRESS  OR  THE  STEAM  ENGINE.      129 

Engine  is  shown  to  have  benefited  multitudes.  The 
Press,  too,  only  benefits  the  mind  (at  least  directly)  ;  the 
Steam  Engine  benefits  the  mind  and  body  too. 

The  Press,  again,  has  existed  for  some  centuries,  and 
its  full  powers  are  known  ;  the  Steam  Engine  on  the  other 
hand,  is  but  just  invented,  and  doubtless  will  be  carried 
to  a  perfection  we  can  scarcely  dream  of.  Its  usefulness 
is  universal  ;  there  is  nothing  to  which  it  cannot  be  ap- 
plied. The  gentleman  who  spoke  last  referred  to  the 
remarks  of  an  ancient  writer  in  favor  of  the  Printing 
Press  ;  let  me  cite  the  remarks  of  an  equally  great 
modern  writer*  in  favor  of  the  Steam  Engine. 

"It  has  become,"  he  says,  "  a  thing  stupendous,  alike 
for  its  force  and  its  flexibility  ;  for  the  prodigious  power 
which  it  can  exert,  and  the  ease,  and  precision,  and 
ductility  with  which  it  can  be  varied,  distributed,  and 
applied.  The  trunk  of  an  elephant,  that  can  pick  up  a 
pin,  or  rend  an  oak,  is  as  nothing  to  it.  It  can  engrave 
a  seal,  and  crush  obdurate  masses  of  metal  before  it  ; 
draw  out,  without  breaking,  a  thread  as  fine  as  a  gos- 
samer, and  lift  up  a  ship  of  war  like  a  bauble  in  the  aii*. 
It  can  embroider  muslin,  and  forge  anchors ;  cut  steel 
into  ribbons,  and  impel  loaded  vessels  against  the  fury 
of  the  winds  and  waves." 

I  will  now  leave  the  question  in  your  hands. 


♦Lord  Jeffrey. 


130  THE  ORATOR. 


QUESTIOI^IX. 

Which  does  the  most  to  make  the  Orator— Knowl- 
edge, Nature,  or  Art  ? 

Opener  :  Oratory  has  done  so  mucli  for  the  cause  of 
human  progress  and  enlightenment,  and  the  masters  of 
Oratory  have  always  been  held  so  high  in  the  world,  that 
the  question  which  I  have  had  the  honor  to  propose  can- 
not fail  to  be  both  interesting  and  instructive  to  us. 

I  seek  to  know  whether  the  Orator  owes  his  power  and 
success  to  his  Knowledge,  to  his  Natural  genius,  or  to 
his  study  of  the  Art  of  speech  ?  Decision  upon  this  point 
will  clearly  be  of  use  to  us ;  for,  as  we  decide,  so  we 
shall  act. 

I  am  of  opinion  that  the  Orator  owes  most  to  Nature. 
I  think  the  gift  of  speech  is  as  much  a  talent  as  the  gift 
of  music  or  any  other  talent  with  which  a  man  is  born. 
Experience  is  the  ground  on  which  I  build  my  belief. 
How  often  do  you  see  a  man  who  knows  a* subject 
thoroughly,  and  yet  cannot  say  five  consecutive  words 
upon  it ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  how  frequently  do 
you  find  that  a  man,  only  slightly  versed  in  the  same 
topic,  will  make  you  a  striking  speech  upon  it  full  of 
wit,  grace,  and  eloquence  !  That  the  powder  of  speech 
is  a  gift  of  nature,  is  proverbial  ;  and,  in  my  opinion, 
justly  so ;  for  observation  continually  shows  us  that  even 
in  early  youth,  when  knowledge  is  scanty,  the  faculty  is 
often  strikingly  developed  ;  while  in  the  maturity  of 
manly  age,  w^hen  knowledge  is  full,  and  (as  far  as  earth 
can  make  it  so)  complete,  the  faculty  is  frequently  alto- 
gether absent. 

And  as  to  Art.  How  very  common  and  numerous  are 
the  instances  where,  after  instructing  a  young  man  in 
elocution,  till  he  has  practiced  as  long  (and  almost  as 


THE  ORATOR.  131 

painfully)  as  Demostlienes,  he  stammers  and  stutters  so 
dreadfully  if  he  have  a  sentence  or  two  to  say,  that  you 
feel  quite  a  pain  and  pity  for  him ;  while,  on  the  con- 
trary, you  continually  find  that  men  who  have  never 
been  taught  the  Art  of  speech  at  all,  become  accom- 
plished and  striking  Orators  ! 

These  instances  seem  to  me  quite  sufficient  to  prove 
that  Oratory  is  a  natural,  and  not  an  acquired  power. 

Second  Speaker.— Sir  :  Our  friend  who  has  opened 
this  debate,  has  spoken  so  very  slightingly  of  the  Art  of 
speech,  that  I  feel  (although  the  humblest  champion  of 
the  cause)  obliged  to  venture  a  word  or  two  in  its  defense. 

In  my  opinion  it  is  Art  to  which  the  Orator  is  mainly 
indebted  for  his  success.  I  take  as  an  instance  of  the 
value  of  Art,  the  case  of  Demosthenes.  This  great 
Orator,  the  greatest  that  the  world  has  ever  seen,  was 
originally  so  vile  a  speaker,  that  his  audiences  hissed  him 
from  their  presence.  Now,  he  had  genius,  for  a  greater 
mind  never  existed  ;  and  Knowledge,  for  he  had  been  in- 
structed by  the  wisest  philosophers  ;  but  being  deficient 
in  Art,  he  was  so  graceless  and  unpleasing  that  men 
would  not  listen  to  him.  When,  however,  he  devoted 
himself  to  the  study  of  the  Art,  he  conquered  his  defects, 
and  won  not  merely  contemporary  applause  (which  is 
the  total  meed  of  most  orators),  but  the  applause  and  ad- 
miration of  the  whole  world  until  now.  The  next  greatest 
Orator  we  know  of,  Cicero,  is  another  example  of  the 
truth  of  my  argument.  His  devotion  to  the  Art  is  so 
well  known  as  to  need  no  evidence  in  proof ;  the  compi- 
lation of  his  great  work  De  Oratore  is  evidence  enough, 
at  all  events.  And  how  wonderful  was  his  success  ! 
Other  instances  as  striking,  if  not  so  illustrious,  might 
be  cited  without  end,  were  it  necessary ;  but  these  will 
suffice.  They  will  suffice  to  show  you  that  as  oratory 
is  most  successful  when  the  Art  of  oratory  is  most  culti- 
vated^ it  must  be  to  Art  that  the  success  is  mainly  owing, 


132  THE  ORATOR. 

Third  Speaker. — Sir  :  I  am  of  opinion  that  it  is 
neither  to  Nature  nor  to  Art  that  the  success  of  an  Orator 
is  owing,  but  to  Knowledge.  Were  the  object  of  oratory 
to  astonish  and  dazzle  the  hearer  with  fine  figures  of 
rhetoric,  and  graceful  streams  or  overpowering  torrents 
of  thought,  then  I  might  accord  the  palm  to  Genius.  Or 
were  the  object  of  human  speech  to  delight  the  ear  with 
mellifluous  cadences,  and  cliarm  the  eye  with  pleasing 
action  and  exiDression,  then  I  should  say  that  the  power 
of  oratory  is  in  Art.  But  these  are  not  the  ends  which 
oratory  has  in  view ;  they  are  only  the  means.  The  soie 
proper  object  of  all  oratory  is  truth,  persuasion,  convic- 
tion. He  therefore  who  is  master  of  his  subject,  who 
has  the  most  thorough  Knowledge  of  it,  must  be  the 
best,  because. the  most  effective,  speaker,  after  all. 

Take  three  different  men ;  a  man  of  plain  practical 
Knowledge,  a  man  of  lofty  Genius,  and  a  man  of  con- 
summate Art,  and  give  them  a  subject  to  debate.  You 
will  find,  that  while  the  man  of  Genius  thrills  and  de- 
lights you  with  his  eloquence,  while  the  man  of  Art 
enchants  you  with  his  elegance  of  action  and  delivery, 
the  man  of  Knowledge  is  the  one  who  in  the  end  con- 
vinces you. 

Genius  without  Knowledge  is  dazzling,  but  useless; 
Art  without  Knowledge  is  empty  and  vain ;  but  Knowl- 
edge, without  either  Art  or  Genius,  can  still  bel)f  serv- 
ice to  truth,  and  still  acquire  respect  from  all  men. 

How  often  does  it  happen  that  in  a  debate  speakers  of 
great  genius  and  power  declaim  in  vain,  while  a  stam- 
mering, hesitating,  awkward  man  of  fact  convinces  in  a 
moment  !  It  is  quite  true  that  Genius  sometimes  triumphs 
over  Knowledge,  and  makes  the  worse  appear  the  better 
reason;  but  the  triumph  is  short-lived,  the  fallacy  is  soon 
exposed,  and  Genius  is  laughed  at  or  despised;  but 
Knowledge  oftener  triumphs  over  Genius,  and  always, 
in  the  nature  of  things,  keeps  its  ground. 


THE   ORATORo  133 

These,  sir,  are  my  views  upon  this  subject. 

Fourth  Speaker. — Sir  :  I  really  cannot  understand 
how  the  gentleman  who  spoke  before  the  last  speaker  can 
fancy  that  Art  is  superior  to  Nature  in  Oratory.  Why, 
what  is  Art  ?  Simply  the  copy  of  nature.  What  is  great, 
effective,  elegant,  striking,  and  graceful  in  natural  speech 
has  been  formed  into  a  code  by  observant  men,  and  this 
is  the  derivation  of  the  art  of  Oratory  !  Now  surely  the 
original  must  be  greater  than  the  imitation  !  Surely  the 
Genius  must  be  greater  than  the  Art  !  Look  to  the  rules 
of  the  Art  themselves,  and  you  will  find  the  admission 
there.  For  what  is  the  first  maxim  of  the  elocution 
teacher?  ''Be  natural;^'  ''Study  nature;''''  "Be  in 
earnest.^''  What  is  this,  but  a  direct  admission  that 
Nature  is  the  great  Orator,  after  all,  and  that  Genius  is 
greater  than  Art,  and  is  its  model  ? 

Oratory  is  the  clear  and  forcible  expression  of  thought; 
and,  as  the  capacity  to  think  clearly  and  deeply  is  at  all 
times  a  natural,  and  never  an  acquired  power,  clear  utter- 
ance, which  depend^  upon  clear  thought,  must  also  be 
natural  and  not  acquired. 

This  is  all  I  have  to  say,  sir,  on  the  subject. 

Fifth  Speaker. — Sir  :  Power  is  of  no  value  without 
impetus.  A  steam  engine  may  be  of  great  strength ; 
but  without  fuel  it  is  worthless,  and  without  guidance  it 
can  do  no  work.  Just  in  like  manner,  a  man  of  genius 
is  useless  without  Knowledge,  and  ineffective  without 
Art.  Mere  greatness  is  nothing,  and  can  do  nothing  ;  it 
is  like  a  perfect  lamp  unfilled  and  untrimmed. 

Now  it  is  very  difficult  to  say  whether  we  are  most  in- 
debted for  the  light  to  the  lamp,  to  the  oil,  or  to  the 
trimming.  Without  the  oil  the  lamp  could  not  be 
lighted;  without  tUe  lamp  the  oil  would  be  of  no  serv- 
ice ;  and  without  the  t^inmiing,  the  lamp  would  burn 
so  ill  as  to  be  nearly  useless,  and  very  disagreeable. 

And,   sir,   it  is  equally  difficult  to  say  w^hether  the 


134  THE  ORATOR. 

genius  for  speaking,  tlie  knowledge  of  the  subject,  or 
the  art  of  delivery,  is  the  most  important  element  in  the 
Orator's  success.  Without  Genius  his  remarks  will  be 
commonplace  and  ineffective  ;  without  Knowledge  they 
will  be  brilliant  but  useless  ;  and  without  Art  they  will 
be  ill-arranged,  graceless,  and  unattractive. 

To  me  it  seems  that  no  man  is  a  good  Orator  who  fails 
to  combine  all  the  three  elements  we  have  named  ;  who 
has  not  the  genius  that  gives  him  clear  and  deep  glances 
into  truth,  the  knowledge  that  gives  him  the  power  of 
fact  and  of  proof,  and  the  art  that  gives  him  the  means 
of  attracting  and  securing  the  attention  of  his  auditors. 

As  I  must  choose  between  the  three  sources  of  the 
Orator's  success,  I  give  my  vote  for  Knowledge.  For  as 
it  is  the  oil  which  is  the  real  source  of  light,  no  matter 
what  the  lamp'  may  be,  so  it  is  Knowledge  that  is  the 
true  illuminator  of  speech,  no  matter  who  may  be  the 
utterer. 

Sixth  Speaker. — I  think,  sir,  it  is  Rousseau  who  says 
that  Oratory  requires  such  a  combination  of  qualities 
that  he  wonders  how  any  man  dares  to  open  his  mouth 
in  public.  ^'Combination  of  qualities."  Mark  that 
phrase  !  qualities,  not  acquirements,  are  needed  by  the 
Orator  ;  qualities  of  genius,  not  qualities  communicated 
by  knowledge.  Insight,  judgment,  comparison,  method, 
boldness,  and  constructiveness;  these  are  the  qualities  on 
which  a  man  depends  in  Oratory,  and  these,  you  will  ob- 
serve, are  all  born  gifts,  and  not  acquired  faculties.  It 
follows,  therefore,  that  to  Genius,  or  Nature,  the  Oratoi 
is  mainly  indebted. 

Take  two  boys  of  the  same  age ;  teach  them  the  same 
facts,  and  give  them  an  equal  knowledge  of  Art ;  you  will 
find  that  they  will  make  quite  different  speakers.  One 
boy  will  be  bright,  quick,  rea^y  of  perception,  facile  in 
illustration,  and  enthusiastic  in  argument;  the  other  will 
be  dull,  slow  to  see,  incorrect  in  judgment,  inconclusive 


THE  ORATOR.  135 

in  reasoning*,  and  feeble  in  proof.  Does  not  this  clearly 
show  us  that  it  is  Genius  and  not  education  that  really 
makes  a  man  an  Orator  ?  I  grant  that  education  is  a 
most  important  element  in  the  Orator's  success;  but  I 
hold  that  it  is  less  important  than  Natural  Talent. 
Genius  without  Art  will  make  a  man  a  better  speaker 
than  Art  without  Genius ;  for  Genius  will  always  give 
eloquence,  while  Art  at  the  most  can  only  give  fluency. 
Genius  is  the  possession  of  mental  power,  Art  is  only 
the  means  of  its  development.  Genius  is  the  stream,  and 
Art  the  channel.  It  needs  no  logic  to  prove  that  Genius 
must  be  the  greater  of  the  two ;  for  as  a  stream  will 
make  itself  a  channel,  whatever  may  obstruct  it,  so 
Genius  will  find  for  itself  a  means  of  development,  how- 
ever great  and  numerous  may  be  the  difficulties  in  its  way. 
Seventh  Speaker. — Sir :  Knowledge  in  an  Orator  may 
be  compared  to  materials  in  the  hands  of  a  skillful  archi- 
tect ;  it  is  the  matter  by  which  he  builds  his  edifice.  Now, 
just  as  the  skill  of  the  builder  would  be  valueless  and 
unavailing  were  he  without  materials  to  build,  so  (it 
seems  to  me)  is  the  genius  of  the  Orator  without  use  or 
value,  if  he  be  without  Knowledge.  For  what  can  he 
do  ?  Talk,  but  prove  nothing ;  shine,  but  give  no  light ; 
please,  but  yield  no  instruction.  Now,  we  know  that 
even  a  common  workman,  if  you  give  him  materials, 
will  build  us  a  house ;  it  will  not  be  so  grand,  so  elegant, 
so  proportionate,  or  so  tasteful  as  the  house  that  an 
architect  of  genius  would  raise ;  but  it  will,  to  say  the 
least  of  it,  be  better  than  none.  Well,  just  in  the  same 
way  the  edifice  of  thought  that  a  speaker  with- 
out genius,  but  possessed  of  knowledge,  would  rear, 
would  be  better  and  more  useful  to  us  (because  more 
substantial)  than  the  airy  fabric  of  fancy  and  eloquence — 
fancy  without  substance,  and  eloquence  without  Id  form- 
ation—which the  Orator  of  Genius,  unaccompanied  by 
Knowledge,  would  create  for  us. 


136  THE    ORATOR. 

Only  let  a  man  know  a  subject,  and  lie  will  soon  find 
a  way  to  let  out  his  intelligence,  and  to  profit  the  world 
by  it.  He  may  speak  badly,  ungracefully,  and  unmus- 
ically ;  without  plan,  succinctness,  or  style ;  but  he  will 
say  what  he  means  before  he  has  done,  and  will  make  his 
audience  fully  understand  him.  How  often  do  you  see 
a  lecturer  upon  Art  or  Science,  who  exhibits  the  great- 
est possible  awkwardness  and  difficulty  in  the  use  of 
speech,  and  who  yet  will  manage  to  enlighten  you  upon 
his  subjects  as  well  (though  not  so  easily)  as  the  most 
accomplished  Orator  could  have  done.  Tliis  convinces 
me  that  Knowledge  is  the  chief  power  which  the  student 
of  Oratory  should  seek  to  acquire. 

Eighth  Speaker.  —Sir :  When  the  last  speaker  com- 
pared the  Orator  to  an  architect,  I  could  not  but  call  to 
mind  the  words  of  Cowper  on  this  subject.     He  says, 

"  It  is  not  mortar,  wood,  and  stone, 
The  architect  requires  alone 

To  finish  a  fine  building  ; 
The  structure  were  but  half  complete 
If  he  could  possibly  forget 

The  carving  and  the  gilding." 

Now,  we  need  no  interpreter  to  tell  us  that  the  materials 
here  named  betoken  Knowledge,  v^hile  the  ' '  carving  and 
gilding"  typify  Art.  Here,  then,  we  see  the  relative 
value  of  the  two  elements.  Knowledge  supplies  material, 
and  Art  fits  that  material  to  its  purpose.  If  this  be  so,  I 
think  it  will  appear  that  Art  has  the  higher  value ;  ma- 
terials are  nothing  by  themselves ;  the  mere  heaping  to- 
gether of  stones  does  not  build  a  house.  It  is  only  when 
Art  is  applied  to  them,  that  the  materials  become  of  any 
service.  The  commonest  workman — and  I  thank  the  last 
speaker  for  the  illustration,  for  it  suits  my  argument,  at 
least  as  well  as  his — the  commonest  workman  can  only 
build  by  rule,  by  Art.  It  is  Art.  that  digs  the  stone  Art 
that  makes  the  tools,  Art  that  shapes  the  material.  Art 
that  lifts  them  to  their  proper  places,  Art  that  binds  the 


THE  ORATOR.  1B7 

fabric  together.  A  man  may  conceive  a  gorgeous  palace 
in  his  mind,  another  may  have  the  materials  to  build  it ; 
but  until  the  man  who  has  been  taught  hoiv  to  build  ap- 
pears, the  palace  remains  unreared.  Just  in  the  same 
way,  a  man  of  Genius  may  conceive  a  vast  truth,  and  a 
man  of  Knowledge  possess  the  materials  to  prove  it, 
but  until  a  man  of  Art  comes  to  put  it  into  shape  and 
form,  the  truth  remains  unproved  and  useless.  I  do  not 
deny  that  the  possession  of  Genius  is  in  itself  greater 
than  the  possession  of  Knowledge  or  Art ;  but  I  simply 
argue  that  as  Art  is  more  practically  important  and 
necessary  than  either  Knowledge  or  Genius,  it  is  more 
valuable  to  the  Orator  than  they  are. 

Ninth  Speaker.  —Sir :  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  a 
very  important  cause  of  an  Orator's  success  has  been 
hitherto  quite  overlooked.  I  think  that  to  confidence  a 
speaker  is  very  deeply  indebted  for  his  triumphs.  Many 
a  man  who  possesses  all  the  other  sources  of  power  re- 
ferred to.  Genius,  Knowledge,  and  the  theory  of  Art,  is 
so  abashed  and  confused  when  he  begins  to  speak,  that, 
with  all  his  talent,  his  attempts  end  in  failure;  while, 
on  the  contrary,  you  often  find  that  a  man  who  possesses 
this  quality  of  confidence  succeeds  in  winning  the  atten- 
tion and  applause  of  his  audience,  although  he  is  neither 
a  man  of  Genius,  nor  of  Knowledge,  nor  of  Taste. 

Now  I  presume  that  this  quality  of  confidence  is  a  gift 
of  nature,  a  peculiarity  of  constitution.  Some  men  are 
naturally  timid,  others  naturally  brave  ;  the  timid  ones, 
of  course,  will  be  nervous,  apprehensive  and  abashed 
when  they  address  an  audience,  while  the  brave  ones 
will  be  bold  and  courageous. 

Oratory,  then,  depends  mainly  on  nature,  I  believe  ; 
as  a  man  is  naturally  constituted,  so  will  he  be  able,  or 
unable,  to  speak. 

I  have  hitherto  referred  to  man's  mental  constitution, 
but  his  success  as  an  Orator  depends  also  very  greatly 


138  THE  ORATOR. 

upon  his  physical  constitution.  If  his  voice  is  weak  or 
disagreeable,  if  his  organs  of  utterance  be  imperfect,  if 
his  countenance  be  repulsive,  his  body  ridiculous  or  dim- 
inutive, his  action  and  gesture  naturally  awkward  or 
laughable,  he  will  never  be  successful  as  a  speaker  ;  con- 
tempt will  attend  his  efforts,  and  ridicule  will  soon  force 
him  into  silence.  On  the  other  hand,  how  often  do  you 
see  a  man  who  is  evidently  stamped  an  Orator  by  nature. 
He  possesses  a  commanding  presence,  a  thoughtful  brow, 
an  intelligent  eye,  a  deep  and  varying  voice,  a  graceful 
and  dignified  action,  a  manner  altogether  imposing  and 
majestic.  If  I  may  be  allowed  to  instance  a  striking 
example  from  the  great  speakers  of  the  present  age,  I 
would  select  the  late  Mi\  O'Connell  as  my  proof.  No 
one  could  have  looked  at  that  man  without  feeling  that 
nature  meant  him  for  an  Orator.  His  person,  his  voice, 
his  gesture,  and  his  striking  action,  showed  at  once  that 
he  was  born  with  a  genius  for  speech.  Whether  he  were 
in  the  House  of  Commons,  or  before  a  hundred  thousand 
of  his  countrymen  in  the  open  air  in  Ireland,  every 
sound  was  hushed  while  he  was  speaking,  and  every  eye 
fixed  on  him  throughout  his  address.  And  this  instance 
is  but  one  of  many.  It  is  nature  that  stamps  the  Orator, 
and  to  nature  he  owes  his  success. 

Tenth  Speaker.— The  last  speaker  has  told  us,  sir, 
that  it  is  to  confidence,  and  to  mental  and  physical  con- 
stitution, that  the  Orator  owes  most  of  his  success.  Let 
me  say  a  few  words  to  you  on  this  point. 

Now  I  think  that  confidence  is  not  a  gift  of  nature  at 
all,  and  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  a  man's  consti- 
tution. Confidence  depends  partly  on  Knowledge,  and 
partly  on  Practice,  or  Art.  Many  men  are  nervous 
because  they  fear  that  they  will  break  down  ;  this  must 
result  from  a  want  of  confidence  in  their  knowledge. 
How  could  they  fear  failure,  if  they  knew  they  could 
prove  the  truth  of  what  they  have  to  say  ? 


THE  ORATOR..  139 

But  I  think  that  the  chief  cause  of  nervousness  in 
speaking  is  want  of  practice.  The  voice  sounds  strangely 
to  a  young  speaker,  he  does  not  know  it  ;  the  many  faces 
he  sees  before  him,  all  looking  at  him,  cause  his  bewil- 
derment ;  memory  fails  him  ;  he  becomes  perplexed, 
forgetful,  and  incoherent  ;  hence  he  fails.  But  practice 
remedies  all  this.  He  gets  used  to  the  sound  of  his  voice, 
and  to  the  attention  of  his  auditors  ;  he  feels  less  trepi- 
dation every  time  he  speaks  ;  his  memory  improves,  and 
gathers  strength  by  exercise  ;  his  thoughts  arise  more 
continuously  and  more  regularly  ;  and  he  becomes  able 
at  length  to  utter  his  thoughts  with  certainty  and  effect. 
The  debt  he  owes  to  Art  is  a  very  great  one,  even  in  a 
physical  point  of  view.  Art  improves,  strengthens,  and 
tunes  his  voice  ;  drills  his  body  into  proper  postures  ; 
gives  elegance  to  his  action,  adds  dignity  to  his  appear- 
ance, and  corrects  the  faults  of  his  utterance.  Let  any 
one  who  is  skeptical  respecting  the  high  value  and  im- 
portance of  Art  in  Oratory  refer  particularly  to  the  case 
of  Demosthenes.  His  failure  at  first  and  his  ultimate 
success  have  been  already  referred  to ;  let  us  now  see  what 
he  did  to  make  himself  the  perfect  Orator  he,  in  the  end,  . 
became.  He  devoted  himself  entirely  to  Art.  He  de- 
claimed (as  we  read)  with  pebbles  in  his  mouth,  and  so 
corrected  his  articulation  ;  he  spoke  by  the  sea-shore, 
and  thus  gave  power  to  his  voice  ;  lie  practiced  attitude 
and  action  in  a  mirror,  and  so  improved  his  manner  and 
gesture  ;  in  a  word,  he  trusted  all  to  Art,  and  Art  reward- 
ed him  with  the  most  perfect  success  ever  attained 
by  a  speaker.     What  more  need  I  say  ? 

Eleventh  Speaker.— Sir  :  I  think  that  success  in  ora- 
tory depends  more  upon  moral  character  than  upon 
Genius,  Knowledge,  or  Art.  The  man  of  truth,  of  rec- 
titude, and  of  goodness,  is  the  greatest  Orator,  after  all. 
For  moral  goodness  gives  consciousness  of  right  ;  con- 
sciousness gives    earnestness  ;    earnestness   gives   elo- 


140  THE  ORATOR. 

quence  ;  and  eloquence  never  fails  to  find  striking  lan- 
guage and  impressive  action.  How  was  it  that  tlie  ora- 
tory of  Paul  made  Felix  tremble  ?  Not  because  tlie 
apostle  was  an  orator  "  stamped  by  nature,"  as  one  gen- 
tleman said  ;  for  lie  was  a  mean-looking,  and,  I  believe, 
deformed  man  ;  but  because  lie  spoke  with  the  fervor 
and  earnestness  which  always  attend  conviction,  of 
*'  righteousness  and  the  world  to  come."  There  was  no 
Genius  m  this,  there  was  no  Art  in  it  ;  but  it  was  simply 
the  moral  conviction  of  a  true-hearted  man  flashing  out 
of  his  soul.  And  thus  you  will  always  find  that  earnest 
and  good  men  are  eloquent  men.  I  do  not  say  "  fluent  ; " 
fluency  is  not  eloquence,  by  any  means  ;  fluency  beloiags 
to  words,  eloquence  to  thought.  Give  a  man  a  subject 
which  engages  his  whole  heart  and  soul,  and  whether  he 
be  educated  or  uneducated,  a  genius  or  an  artist,  a  man 
of  universal  knowledge  or  a  man  of  limited  experience, 
you  will  see  that  he  will  speak  well  and  forcibly  and 
effectively  upon  that  subject  whenever  he  treats  of  it.  I 
have  a  far  greater  faith  in  moral  conviction  than  in 
iniellectual  strength,  stores  of  knowledge,  or  artistical 
^perfection.  The  Orator  who  speaks  from  the  heart  is 
the  only  true  Orator,  the  only  Orator  whose  fame  will 
really  last.  With  these  sentiments,  sir,  I  must  be  ex- 
cused from  giving  a  vote  upon  this  question. 

Twelfth  Speaker. — Sir:  With  all  due  respect  to  the 
gentleman  who  cited  Demon sthenes  as  a  proof  of  the 
value  of  Art  in  Oratory,  I  must  be  allowed  to  express  my 
opinion  that  the  great  Orator  referred  to  owed  less  to 
Art  than  we  (some  of  us)  imagine. 

It  is  quite  true  that  Art  led  him  to  conquer  many  nat- 
ural defects  and  difficulties  :  but  it  was  the  perception 
and  conviction  of  the  Genius  within  him  that  induced 
him  to  study  Art  as  he  did.  Unless  it  can  be  shown  that 
the  same  amount  of  study  would  make  any  man  a 
Demosthenes,  it  must  be  admitted  that  Demosthenes  was 


THE  ORATOR.  141 

an  Orator  naturally  superior  to  other  men  ;  and  conse- 
quently that  on  Nature,  more  than  Art,  oratorical  success 
depends.  Art  was  useful  to  Demosthenes,  because  he  teas 
possessed  of  genius  ;  the  same  amount  of  practice  by  a 
dullard  would  have  done  comparatively  little  good.  Sir, 
Demosthenes  owed  all  his  real  success  to  his  genius.  He 
had  the  sense  to  see,  and  the  heart  to  feel,  that  the 
slavery  and  luxury  of  Greece  were  abominable  and  de- 
testable ;  and,  with  a  mental  vigor  and  a  moral  force 
without  parallel  in  history,  he  made  his  conviction  the 
conviction  of  all  Greece.  When  he  said,  "  Let  us  march 
AGAINST  Philip  :  let  us  conquer  or  die,"  it  was  not  the 
blazing  eye,  not  the  energetic  arm,  not  the  loud  voice, 
not  the  determined  manner,  of  the  speaker,  that  led  the 
vast  crowd  he  addressed  to  echo  his  appeal  ;  it  was  the 
sentiment,  the  truth  he  uttered,  that  aroused  his  audi- 
tors. His  soul  saw  and  spoke  to  their  souls  ;  and  the 
manner  was  nothing,  as  compared  with  the  matter  of 
speech.  Upon  Nature,  therefore,  acting  upon  Knowl- 
edge, the  success  of  the  Orator  seems  entirely  to  depend. 
These,  sir,  are  my  opinions  on  this  subject. 

Thirteenth  Speaker.— Sir  :  It  appears  to  me  that 
Demosthenes  himself  opposes  the  arguments  of  his  de- 
fenders and  champions.  They  maintam  that  success  in 
Oratory  depends  on  Genius  ;  he  on  the  contrary  asserts 
that  it  depends  on  Art.  "What  is  the  first  requisite  in  an 
Orator  ?  li§  was  asked.  Action^  was  his  reply.  What 
the  second  ?  Action.  What  the  third  ?  Action.  By 
Action  he  here  means  Elocution,  or  the  art  of  delivery. 
If,  then,  it  is  the  opinion  of  the  greatest  master  of  speech 
ever  known,  that  Art  does  more  for  the  Orator  than 
Nature,  how  can  we  suppose  or  contend  that  Nature  is 
superior  to  Art  ? 

Art,  let  us  bear  in  mind,  is,  as  it  relates  to  speech,  a 
term  of  wide  meaning.  It  includes,  not  merely  the 
mechayiism  of  speech,  but  the  whole  management   of 


142  T5E  ORATOR. 

knowledge  and  mental  power.  The  means  by  which 
Knowledge  is  acquired,  the  rules  by  which  thought  is  re- 
duced into  order,  and  the  discipline  of  the  mind,  as  much 
belong  to  the  art  of  Oratory,  as  the  management  of  the 
voice  and  the  action  of  the  body. 

To  Art,  therefore,  I  give  the  highest  place.  Taught  by 
Art,  the  student  will  gather  wisdom,  enlarge  his  mind,  cul- 
tivate his  perception,  exercise  his  imagination,  strengthen 
his  memory,  accumulate  ideas,  supply  himself  with  facts 
and  illustrations,  practice  himself  in  logic,  proof,  and 
philosophy,  observe  the  emotions  of  feeling  and  passion, 
learn  how  to  portray  them,  and  beyond  all  this  train  his 
mind  into  habits  of  thought  and  virtue,  and  his  physical 
powers  into  pliancy,  gracefulness,  and  strength.  This, 
you  may  depend,  will  make  a  man  a  far  greater  Orator 
than  he  will  become  under  the  mere  impulse  of  genius, 
or  aided  by  the  most  extended  human  knowledge. 
Whether  we  search  the  history  of  the  past,  or  look 
around  us  in  the  civilized  world  of  to-day,  how  few  we 
find  who  have  risen  to  the  high  eminence  of  Oratory. 

In  this  country,  where  freedom  of  speech  is  untram- 
meled,  and  where  every  man  may  be  called  upon  to  give 
free  expression  to  his  opinions,  even  a  fluent  speaker  is 
a  rarity.  Fluency  of  speech  will  obtain  a  hearing  only 
so  long  as  the  subject  is  coherent  and  interesting  ;  but 
to  hold  a  vast  audience  spell -bound  in  rapt  and  breath- 
less attention,  to  sway  their  emotions,  to  raise  them  to 
the  highest  pitch  of  enthusiasm — this  is  Oratory  !  And, 
sir,  in  order  to  reach  such  results  as  these,  an  orator 
must  not  only  be  naturally  gifted  with  fluency  of  speech, 
but  his  theme  must  be  a  lofty  one,  thoroughly  studied  in 
all  its  bearings  ;  his  chain  of  reasoning  must  be  logically 
arranged,  his  rhetoric  unimpeachable,  his  deductions 
clear  and  conclusive.  He  cannot  succeed,  he  must  fail, 
without  these  indispensable  aids  of  Study  and  Art. 

Opener  (in  reply). — Sir  :  I  have  been  led  by  this  de- 


THE  ORATOR.  143 

bate  to  see  that  excellence  in  Oratory  depends  not  upon 
any  one  of  the  elements  to  which  my  question  refers, 
but  upon  all.  Mere  genius  will  never  make  an  Orator, 
nor  will  mere  knowledge,  nor  will  mere  art  ;  it  is  only 
by  the  union  of  the  three  that  a  successful  Oi'ator  can  be 
formed. 

In  educating  for  an  Orator,  therefore,  this  fact  must  be 
most  carefully  kept  in  view.  We  must  ascertain,  first, 
that  power  exists  in  the  mind  we  seek  to  teacli,  that  it 
has  quickness  to  see,  capacity  to  judge,  method  to  ar- 
range,  and  aptness  to  apply  ;  we  must  next  fill  that  mind 
with  knowledge,  knowledge  of  every  sort,  physical,  men- 
tal, and  moral  ;  not  heaped  together  chaotically,  but 
communicated  gradually  and  in  orderly  arrangement  ; 
and  we  must  lastly  refine  the  mind  by  art,  methodize 
what  it  has  thought  and  learned,  and  shape  it  into  form 
and  gracefulness,  and  beauty.  I  would  not  bestow  too 
much  attention  upon  Art,  for  it  has  a  tendency  to 
mechanize  and  unspiritualize  the  mind ;  but  I  would  keep 
it  in  its  due  place,  and  perpetually  fix  attention  upon  the 
more  important  elements  beyond  it.  Above  all,  I  would 
instruct  the  mi  nd  of  the  student  in  truth  and  virtue.  I 
would  say  to  him,  "Let  truth  be  your  aim,  and  to  that, 
and  that  only,  bow.  You  have  but  one  cause  to  serve  ; 
yes,  understand  me  well  !  you  must  serve  the  cause  of 
goodness,  and  that  cause  alone,  or  your  acquirements 
will  be  a  curse  to  you  rather  than  a  blessing,  and  a  re- 
proach rather  than  an  honor.  Recollect  that  as  nothing 
more  highly  ennobles  the  character  of  man  than  the 
right  use  of  the  faculty  of  speech,  so  nothing  degrades  it 
lower  than  the  employment  of  this  power  to  vile  pur- 
poses. If  you  condescend  to  stoop  from  the  lofty  pedes- 
tal  of  honor,  and  employ  your  strength  to  promote  vice 
and  error,  mistake  me  not  !  you  will  be  made  bitterly  to 
feel  your  degradation,  and  the  shafts  you  point  at  truth 
will  turn  into  your  own  bosom.    He  who  stirs  the  pas- 


144  THE  ORATOR. 

sions  of  men  to  enlist  them  on  the  side  of  infidelity  and 
vice,  must  necessarily  lead  a  life  of  hypocrisy  and  dis- 
simulation ;  and  who  will  say  that  such  a  life  can 
be  a  happy  one  ?  while,  on  the  other  hand,  he  who  uses 
his  faculties  to  promote  virtue  and  Jionor,  can- 
not fail  to  live  a  life  of  peace  and  pleasure,  of  peace  that 
is  steady  and  unvarying,  of  pleasure  that  is  pure-  and 
holy.  Let  your  aim,''  I  would  say  to  him  in  conclusion, 
*^be  the  interest  and  the  good  of  those  around  you  ;  let 
the  means  you  employ  be  honor  and  sincerity,  and  then 
you  will  find,  that  in  seeking  the  happiness  of  your 
fellow-beings  you  have  taken  the  best  and  most  effectual 
method  to  advance  your  own. 


PART  IL-OUTLINES  OF  DEBATES. 


QUESTION: 

Which  Does  the  greater  Injury  to  Society,  the 
Miser  or  the  Spendthrift  ? 

It  may  be  contended  that  the  Miser  does  more  to  injure 
society  than  the  Spendthrift : 

I.  Because  he  withdraws  capital  from  circulation,  while 

the  other  causes  its  distribution. 
II.  Because  he  leads  people  by  the  influence  of  ex- 
ample to  devote  themselves  to  Mammon- worship, 
than  which  there  is  not  a  more  wicked  or  per- 
nicious crime. 

III.  Because  his  avarice  tends  to  abridge  the  comforts  of 

those  around  him,  to  limit  the  education  of  his 
children  in  knowledge  and  virtue,  and  to  set  an 
example  of  selfishness  to  the  world. 

IV.  Because  the  hoarding  of  money  tends  to  the  pro- 

duction of  that  worst  state  in  which  a  nation  can 
be  placed,  when  a  few  are  rich  and  the  many 
poor. 
V.  Because  the  love  of  money  being  the  root  of  all 
evil,  avarice  tends  to  nourish  and  develop  every 
sort  of  crime. 

On  the  other  hand  it  may  be  argued  that*  the  Spend- 
thrift is  more  injurious  to  society  than  the  Miser: 


146  THE  MISER  OR  THE  SPENDTHRIFT. 

I.  Inasmuch  as,  by  distributing  capital,  he  prevents 
those  large  accumulations  which  are  the  bases  of 
all  extensive  enterprises  in  trade  or  commerce. 
II.  Because  he,  in  effect,  discourages  industry  and  fru- 
gality in  the  heads  of  families;  for  what  father 
would  hoard  for  a  spendthrift  son  ? 

III.  Because  he  brings  to  utter  ruin  those  who  are  de- 

pendent upon  him. 

IV.  Because  his  miserable  courses  tend  to  give  us  a 

degraded  and  vile  idea  of  our  species,  and  so  to 
check  friendship  and  sympathy. 
V.  Because  he  offers  a  bad  example  to  the  world. 

Upon  the  question  generally,  it  may  be  said  that  the 
injury  done  to  society  by  these  two  characters  is  nearly* 
if  not  entirely,  equal.  The  Spendthrift  is  as  far  away 
from  virtue  on  the  one  side,  as  the  Miser  is  on  the  other; 
and  the  effects  of  prodigality  are  as  bad  as  those  of 
avarice. 

The  characters  are  extremes,  and  are  seemingly  set  up 
by  nature  to  be  mutually  counteractive.  Thus  the  world 
is  generally  secured  from  the  effects  of  hoarding  avarice 
by  the  fact  that  miserly  fathers  usually  leave  their  for- 
tunes to  spendthrift  sons.  The  accumulated  heaps  of  one 
generation  are  generally  dispersed  in  the  next;  and  in 
this  manner  the  equilibrium  of  character  is  tolerably  well 
preserved. 

See  M'Culloush's  Political  Economy,  pp.  504-509. 
Adam  Smith's  Wealth  of  Na'ions. 
Mammon.    By  the  Rev.  J.  Harris,  D.  D. 
Mackenzie's  History  of  Frugality. 
Ramsay.    On  the  Distribution  of  Wealth. 
Torrens.    On  the  Production  of  Wealth. 


IS  UNIVERSAL  PEACE  PROBABLE.  147 

QUESTION  : 
Is  Universal  Peace  probable  ? 
The  supporters  of  the  negative  might  say  : 
I.  That  the  present  appearance  of  the  world  gives  no 
promise  that  Universal  Peace  is  at  all  to  be  expected. 
Ambition  is  opposed  to  ambition,  interest  to  interest ; 
and  many  other  sources  exist  from  which  quarrels 
may    be  anticipated.    Disputed  territories,  mutual 
jealousies,  irritated  distrust,  and  many  other  causes 
of  hostility,  threaten  war  daily,  even  in  Europe. 
II.  That  the  principle  of  hatred  and  contention  implanted 
in  all  our  hearts  cannot  fail  to  produce  and  foment 
quarrels,  which  only  appeals  to  arms  can  decide. 

III.  That  as  a  large  class  in  every  community  finds 

pleasure  and  interest  in  war,  it  is  scai^cely  possible 
that  war  can  ever  cease. 

IV.  That  while  the  human  race  exists,  sources  of  con- 

tention cannot  altogether  cease ;  but  social,  domes- 
tic, political,  or  foreign  discontent,  will  always 
need  to  be  repressed  by  military  strength. 

Ill  the  affirmative  it  may  be  argued  : 
I.  That  although  the  present  appearance  of  the  world 
may  lead  us  to  think  that  existing  contentions  can 
only  be  settled  by  the  sword,  the  increasing  infre- 
•  quency  of  war  gives  promise  of  Universal  Peace  at 
some  future  time. 
II.  That  civilization  brings  a  growing  conviction  that 
war  is  unjustifiable ;  and  therefore  that  when  civili- 
zation is  perfect,  this  conviction  will  be  universal, 
and  war  will  be  abolished. 

III.  That  as  men  have  at  length  found  that  war  is  in  the 
liighest  degree  inexpedient,  and  destructive  k)  the 
best  interests  of  the  hjiman  race,  considerations  of 
policy  insure  its  gradual  and  certain  abolition. 


148  BONAPARTE,   WATT,   OR  HOWARD. 

IV.  That  although  there  are  in  the  human  heart  princi- 
ples of  strife    and  hatred  existing,  the    Christian 
religion  is  gradually  rooting  out  these  seeds  of  evil, 
and  planting  principles  of  Peace  instead,  which  will 
not  cease  to  grow  until  they  have    covered  the 
whole  earth. 
V.  That  we  have  clear  Scriptural  assurances  that  Uni- 
versal Peace  shall  one  day  prevail. 
The  following  among  others  may  be  cited  : 
I.  The  prophetical  description  of  our  Saviour,  namely, 

'  *  The  Prince  of  Peace.  " 
II.  The  anthem  of  the  Angels  at  the  birth  of  Christ, 
''''Peace  and  good  will  among  men." 

III.  The  dying  bequest  of  our  Lord,  ^^  Peace  I  leave 

with  you ;  my  peace  I  give  unto  you." 

IV.  The  distinct  prophecy  of  Isaiah  that  ^ '  Nation  shall 

not  rise  against  nation,  neither  shall  there  be  war 
any  more." 

See  Lord  Jeffrey's  Espays,  vol.  i.  pp.  91-93. 

Sir  James  Mackintosh's  Works,  vol.  ii.  pp.  330-327. 

The  Tracts  of  the  Peace  Society. 

Chalmers'  Works.    Discourse  on  War. 

Robert  Hall.    On  War,  vol.  i. 

Channing.    On  War. 

Pyne's  Law  of  Kindness. 

Captain  Sword  and  Captain  Pen.    By  Leigh  Hunt. 


QUESTION  : 

Which  was  the   greatest  man,  Bonaparte,  W^^t, 
OR  Howard  'i 

The  supporters  of  Bonaparte  might  say  that  he  was 
the  greatest  because  he  had  the  largest  capacity  and 
genius ;  proofs  of  which  are^tobe  found  in  that  rare  com- 
bination of  abilities  which  made  him,  from  the  condition 


BONAPARTE,    WATT,    OR  HOWARD.  149 

of  a  subordinate  soldier,  rise  to  be  the  humbler  of  Europe, 
and  the  Emperor  of  France ;  and  which  enabled  him  to 
settle  and  successfully  govern  his  country  at  the  most 
disorderly  and  chaotic  period  in  her  history. 

The  supporters  of  Watt  might  say  that  he  was  the 
greatest  man  because  he  did  the  most  to  benefit  mankind. 
Napoleon  was  more  dazzling,  but  Watt  was  more  useful. 
By  applying  and  improving  the  steam-engine  he  conferred 
lasting  advantages  upon  the  human  race,  while  Na- 
poleon's brilliant  career  was  an  injurious  and  destructive 
one  to  man.  The  question  of  the  comparative  greatness 
of  Napoleon  and  James  Watt  depends  upon  whether 
vast  genius  not  turned  to  good  account  is  greater  than 
inferior  genius  beneficially  employed. 

The  favorers  of  Howard  might  say  that,  as  moral 
goodness  is  the  only  true  greatness,  his  pure  philanthropy 
and  generous  charity  make  him  a  greater  man  than  either 
the  giant-souled  Napoleon,  or  the  ingenious  and  useful 
Watt. 

That  Howard's  unceasing  efforts  to  conquer  cruelty  in 
prison  discipline  prove  him  to  be  both  of  higher  courage 
than  Napoleon,  and  of  more  value  than  James  Watt ; 
for  his  bravery  was  the  bravery  of  soul,  while  Bona- 
parte's was  only  the  bravery  of  physical  courage  ;  and 
his  philanthropy  was  the  philanthropy  of  heart  which 
led  him  to  desire  the  moral  good  of  his  fellow-creatures, 
while  James  Watt's  endeavors  were  merely  directed  to 
the  improvement  of  man's  physical  condition. 

Opportunity  may  be  taken  in  this  discussion  to  show  : 

I.  The  detestaljility,  horrors,  and  inexpediency  of  war ; 
of  which  Napoleon's  history  furnishes  the  most 
striking  instances  on  record. 
II.  The  vast  good  that  a  philanthropic  spirit  can  effect; 
for  to  Howard's  endeavors  our  improved,  but  not 
yet  perfect,  prison  discipline  is  mainly  owing. 


150  CLASSICS  OR  MATHEMATICS. 

III.  That  brilliancy  is  not  be  mistaken  for  greatness,  as 
true  greatness  never  exists  without  goodness. 

See  Robert  Hall  on  Bonaparte. 
Foster's  character  of  Howard. 
Lord  Jeffrey's  Works,  vol.  iv.  pp.  551-556. 
Carlyle's  Hero  Worship.    "  The  Hero  as  King." 
Emerson's  Essay  on  Heroism. 
Burke  on  the  Character  of  Howard  (Speeches). 
Channing's  Character  of  Napoleon. 
Arago's  Life  of  Watt. 


QUESTION: 

Which  are  of  the  greater  importance   in  Educa- 
tion, THE  Classics  or  Mathematics  ? 

To  give  a  wide  and  useful  scope  to  this  discussion,  it 
may  be  as  well  to  let  the  word  ' '  Classics "  stand  for 
* '  General  literature, "  and  ' '  Mathematics  "  for  ' '  Science." 
The  supporters  of  the  Classics  might  contend  that  they 
are  of  greater  value  than  Mathematics  : 
I.  Because  they  tend  to  widen  thought,  while  Mathe- 
matics tend  to  concentrate  it. 
II.  Because  they  lead  to  the  cultivation  of  all  the  facul- 
ties of  the  mind,  while  Mathematics  simply  exer- 
cise the  perceptive  and  reasoning  powers. 

III.  Because  they  promote  the  enlargement  and  spiritual- 

ization  of   the  mind,  while  Mathematics  tend  to 
make  it  mechanical,  narrow,  and  dogmatical. 

IV.  Because  they  fill  the  mind  with  images  of  beauty 

which  tend  both  to  mental  happiness  and  moral 
goodness,  while  Mathematics  simply  fill  th^  mind 
with  facts,  and  close  it  against,  all  speculative 
philosophy. 
V.  Because  they  promote  inquiry  and  faith,  while 
Mathematics  tend  to  make  the  mind  reject  as 
false  whatever  cannot  be  proved  by  logic  to  be 
true. 


CLASSICS  OR  MATHEMATICS.  151 

VI.  Because  by  exercising  and    stimulating  thought, 
they  lead  to  the  elevation  of  mental  over  mechani- 
cal force,  while  Mathematical  science  tends  to  sub- 
jugate spiritual  to  material  power. 
The  defenders  of  Mathematics  might  say  that  they  are 
more  beneficial  to  the  mind  than  the  Classics  : 
I.  Because  they  are  the  best  means  we  possess  of  arriv- 
ing satisfactorily  at  physical,  mental,  and  even 
moral,  truth. 
II.  Because,  by  placing  facts  in  due  mutual  relation, 
they  form  the  only  sure  foundation  on  which  we 
can  build  our  Knowledge,    our  Faith,  and  our 
Hopes. 

III.  Because,  by  cultivating  the  study  of  Science,  they 

lead  to  the  discovery  of  mechanical,  mineral,  and 
other  material  forces,  which  mere  speculation 
would  never  have  found  out. 

IV.  Because,  by  fixing  the  mind  on  fact  and  proof,  they 

give  it  firmness,  clearness,  and  solid  principles  ; 
and  render  it  less  liable  to  be  misled. 
V.  Because,  by  filling  the  mind  with  absolute  Knowl- 
edge, they  form  the  starting-points  to  truth  ;  while 
mere  speculative  thought  mostly  leads  toward  be- 
wilderment and  error. 

VI.  Because  they  train  the  mind  into  steady,   earnest, 

and  continuous  habits  of  thought;  and  thereby  pro- 
duce patience,  constancy,  determination,  order, 
quickness  of  apprehension,  foresight,  and  judg- 
ment. 

VII.  Because  they  restrain  that  tendency  to  credulity, 

speculativebelief  and  visionary  Philosophy,  toward 
which  mere  untrained  thought  generally  leads. 

See  Brougham  on  Subjects  of  Science,  as  connected  with-Natural  The- 
ology. 
Chalmers'  Christian  Revelation  as  connected  with  Modern  Astron- 
omy. 


152  ARE  BRUTES  ENDOWED  WITH  REASON. 

See  Whevvcirs  Astronomy  and  General  Physics  in  reference  to  Natural 
Theology. 
Whewell  on  University  Education. 
Sidney  Smith's  Works,  vol.  i.  pp.  183-199. 
Robt.  Hall  on  Classical  Learning. 
Leslie  on  Mathematical  Science, 
Playfair  on  Mathematical  Science. 


QUESTION: 
Are  Brutes  endowed  with  Reason  ? 

The  affirmative  may  be  supported  by  arguments  from 
experience  and  from  analogy. 

Reason  may  be  defined  to  be  the  power  of  drawing 
conclusions  from  premises,  of  perceiving  differences,  and 
of  forming  a  judgment  from  ideas  derived  from  observa- 
tion or  memory ;  and  the  following  (among  other)  instan- 
ces may  be  adduced  to  show  that  animals  possess  this 
^ower : 

I.  If  a  dog  be  beaten  for  stealing  meat  from  a  butcher's 
shop,  he  will  never  pass  that  shop  again  unless  he  be 
compelled .  Here  the  recollection  of  his  punish- 
ment clearly  operates  with  him  as  a  reason  to  pre- 
vent him  from  incurring  the  chance  of  a  second 
beating. 
tl.  If  an  elephant,  a  horse,  or  a  dog  be  injured,  he  will 
always  recollect  the  injurer,  and  if  possible  punish 
him.  Instances  of  this  kind  are  to  be  found  in  every 
work  on  natural  history.  Here  we  see  a  rational 
recollection,  and  a  rational  appreciation  of  revenge 
as  a  satisfaction  and  punishment. 
III.  In  the  skill  of  the  bee,  the  provident  habits  of  the 
ant,  the  sagacity  of  the  dog,  and  the  ingenuity 
(among  other  instances)  of  the  monkey,  we 
clearly  see  the  evidence  of  constructive,  rational. 


ARE  BRUTES  ENDOWED  WITH  REASON.  153 

and  mental  power,  which  must  own  a  much  higher 
source  than  mere  physical  life,  and  which  we  can 
not  help  imputing  to  the  existence  of  the  same 
intellectual  intelligence  (the  same  in  essence,' 
though  different  in  degree)  that  is  possessed  by 
man. 

On  the  other  side  it  may  be  said : 

I.  That  the  rational  faculties  which  appear  to  exist  in 
the  Brute  Creation  are  simply  the  faculties  of  in- 
stinct,*and  not  of  Eeason  at  all. 
II.  That  instinct  is  a  species  of  intelligence  quite  differ- 
ent fi'om  Reason,  consisting  mostly  of  an  intuitive 
perception  of  facts,  while  Reason  is  the  power  that 
leads  us  to  discover  truth  by  search. 

III.  That  the  ideas  of  animals  are  essentially  different 

from  those  of  man,  inasmuch  as  they  are  simply 
perceptive,  while  man's  are  both  perceptive  and 
reflective. 

IV.  That  as  Reason  includes  a  perception  of  moral  good 

and  evil,  and  as  the  Brute  Creation  has  no  such 
perception,  Brutes  are  not  endowed  with  Reason. 
V.  That  between  the  least  intelligent  of  Men,  and  the 
most  intelligent  of  Brutes,  there  are  such  striking 
differences,  that  the  Brute  and  the  Man  must  be 
of  essenti'ally  different  natures. 
VI.  That  man's  place  as  "lord  of  the  brute"  clearly 
implies  superiority  and  difference  of  rational 
power. 

A  very  interesting  discussion  might  arise  here  upon  the 
immortality  of  Brutes  ;  one  side  maintaining  : 

That  if  the  principle  of  life  which  animates  the  Brute 
Creation  can  be  forever  extinguished,  there  can  not 
but  arise  a  fear  that  man's  existence  may  be  alto- 
gether annihilated,  too. 


154  IS  DUELING  JUSTIFIABLE. 

The  other  side  replying  : 

That  it  is  not  the  mental,  but  the  moral  part  of  man's 
being"  that  is  promised  immortality  ;  and  that  (with 
King  David,  who  says,  that  "in  the  grave  all  our 
thoughts  perish  ")  we  have  every  ground  for  believ- 
ing that  it  is  not  the  mental  faculties,  but  the  moral 
perceptions^  that  will  survive  this  life. 

Occasion  may  be  taken  in  this  debate  to  inculcate  kind- 
ness and  humanity  toward  the  Brute  Creation. 

See  Jesse's  Anecdotes  of  Dogs.  • 

Jesse's  Gleanings  in  Natural  History. 

History  and.  Instincts  of  Animals.— Lardner's  Cabinet  Cyclopaedia. 
Gregory'8  Comparative  View  of  Men  and  Animals. 
Waterton's  Essay  on  Natural  History. 
Dr.  Chalmers'  Sermon  on  Cruelty  to  Animals. 
Toplady's  Speech  on  the  Immortality  of  Brutes. 
Aime  Martin's  Work  on  Education— Translated  by  Lee. 
Carpenter's  Instinct  in  Animals. 
Sharon  Turner's  Sacred  History  of  the  World. 
Vestigesof  Creation,  pp.  333-336. 

Hume's  Essay  on  the  Reason  of  Animals,  vol.  ii.  pp.  111-117. 
Reid  on  the  Mind,  p.  489.    "  On  instinct." 
Fletcher's  Cruelty  to  Animals. 


QUESTION: 
Is  Dueling  justifiable  ? 

Dueling  may  be  defended : 
I.  Because  it  is  the  only  method  by  which  honor  can 

be  protected,  avenged,  or  satisfied. 
II.  Because,  it  being  a  custom  of  the  state  of  society  in 
which  we  find  ourselves,  we  are  bound  to  submit 
to  it. 
III.  Because  it  is  a  useful  check  upon  those  vices  of  so- 
ciety which  do  not  come  within  the  range  of  law; 
such  as  insult,  Ubertinism,  and  falsehood. 


IS  DUELING  JUSTIFIABLE.  155 

IV.  Because  it  is  a  test  of  personal  courage,  and  because 
it  is  a  plain  and  intelligible  law  to  the  effect,  that 
what  a  man  says  or  does,  he  must,  when  called 
on,  be  ready  to  defend. 

The  opponents  of  dueling  may  contend  that  is  un- 
justifiable : 

I.  Because  it  fails  to  accomplish  its  pretended  aims, 
inasmuch  as  (whatever  its  aim  may  be)  it  neither 
avenges  nor  satisfies  wounded  honor. 
II.  Inasmuch  as  it  makes  an  appeal  to  right  a  simple 
game  of  chance. 

III.  Inasmuch  as  it  gives  the  injured  no  redress,  and 

the  injurer  power  to  do  more  mischief, 

IV.  Because,  although  a  law  of  society,  it  is  a  wicked 

and  absurd  law,  and  is  therefore  not  binding. 
V.  Because  the  vices  which  it  is  presumed  to  hold  in 
check  are  not  abated  by  it,  and  could  better  be 
restrained  by  law. 
VI.  Because  it  proves,  not  courage,  but  foolhardiness ; 
for  what  but  foolhardy  can  we  call  a  man  who 
flings  his  soul  to  perdition,  rather  than  disobey 
a  foolish  custom  of  society  ? 
VII.  Because  it  is  an  irrational  and  most  ridiculous 
practice. 
VIII.  Because  it  is  totally  opposed  to  all  molality. 
IX.  Because  it  is  a  direct  violation  of  the  laws  of 
God. 

See  Carlyle'8  Sartor  Resartus, 

Writings  of  Sidney  Taylor,  pp.  357, 362,  366. 
Paley's  Moral  and  Political  Philosophy. 
Chillingworth  against  Dueling. 
Dr.  Millingen  on  Dueling. 

Brande's  Dictionary  of  Science,  &c.    Art.    "  Duel,"  and  the  Works 
there  quoted. 


156  IS  MODERN  EQUAL  TO  ANCIENT  ORATORY. 

QUESTION: 
Is  Modern  equal  to  Ancient  Oratory  ? 

This  question  resolves  itself  into  two  distinct  consid- 
erations :  I.  Whether  modern  is  equal  to  ancient  Oratory 
in  Style  f  and  II.  Whether  it  is  equal  in  Aim  and 
Effect  ? 

As  to  Style  (which  includes  all  that  is  meant  by  com- 
position) it  may  be  said  by  the  favorers  of  ancient  Ora- 
tory, that  nothing  of  modern  times  equals  the  style  of 
Demosthenes,  ^schinos,  and  Cicero.  The  simplicity,  the 
grandeur,  the  dignity,  the  power,  the  intellectual  and 
moral  force  of  these  great  orators,  are  altogether  without 
parallel  in  modern  ages.  The  orations  of  ^schines  and 
Demosthenes  "On  the  Crown,"  and  the  speeches  of 
Cicero  for  Milo,  may  be  instanced  as  containing  the  most 
perfect  specimens  of  oratorical  style  that  the  world  pos- 
sesses. Demosthenes,  for  bold  simplicity  of  thought, 
jEschines,  for  energetic  statement  and  strength  of  de- 
nunciation, and  Cicero,  for  his  exquisitely  lucid,  pic 
turesque,  and  earnest  style,  are  (it  may  be  said)  quite 
unrivaled  by  any  subsequent  orators. 

In  comparison  with  these  great  speakers  as  to  style,  it 
may  be  asserted  that  among  modern  orators,  speakers 
are  to  be  found  who  are  as  great  in  some  separate  quali- 
ties, if  not  in  all.  Thus  it  may  be  maintained,  for  in- 
stance, that  Lord  Chatham  was  as  dignified  and  earnest 
as  Demosthenes,  that  Fox  was  as  simple  and  massive, 
and  that  Burke  was  as  vehement  and  manly.  So,  also, 
it  may  be  argued  that  Sheridan  was  as  pointed  and  sar- 
castic as  Cicero,  Curran  as  lofty  and  dignified,  Brougham 
as  crushing  and  severe,  Bossuet  as  impressive,  and  Can- 
ning as  felicitous  in  illustration  and  argument.  Grant- 
ing, therefore,  that  no  single  modern  orator  is  alone  as 
great  as  either  of  the  speakers  referred  to,  it  may  be 


IS  MODERN  EQUAL  TO  ANCIENT  ORATORY.  157 

safely  said,  that  they  separately  exhibit  the  same  quali- 
ties and  excellences  of  style. 

It  may  be  further  said,  on  behalf  of  modern  Oratory  in 
general,  that  in  richness  of  illustration  and  beauty  of 
style  (by  beauty  is  here  meant  appropriateness  of  im- 
agery, and  elegance  of  language),  the  modern  Orators 
far  surpass  their  great  progenitors.  The  vast  accumula- 
tions of  knowledge  and  the  incalculable  produce  of  new 
mines  of  thought  which  have  been  gathered  together  in 
modern  times,  have  given  to  our  Orators  resources  of 
reference,  illustration,  and  proof,  which  the  Orators  of 
old  were  entirely  without.  If  a  speech  of  Demosthenes 
or  Cicero  be  perused  by  the  side  of  a  speech  of  Brougham 
or  Macaulay,  it  will  be  seen  at  once  that  where  the  olden 
Orator  \vas  obliged  to  appeal  to  abstract  reason,  the  mod- 
ern Orator  is  enabled  to  refer  triumphantly  to  irresistible 
facts,  in  support  of  his  position.  As  to  aim  and  effect^ 
it  may  be  said  by  the  favorers  of  ancient  Oratory  that 
the  endeavors  of  Demosthenes  to  rouse  effeminate 
Greece  against  the  invader  of  her  freedom,  and  the  un- 
ceasing efforts  of  Cicero  to  keep  inviolate  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  his  fellow-countrymen,  are  aims  as  high., 
if  not  higher,  than  any  seen  in  modern  times.  The  effect 
these  Orators  produced  is  seen,  not  merely  in  the  ap- 
plause and  success  w^hich  they  immediately  experienced, 
but  in  the  intelligible  and  striking  fact  that  they  have  re- 
mained the  acknowledged  masters  and  models  of  speech 
from  their  day  to  our  own. 

The  favorers  of  modern  Qratory  may  assert,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  our  own  speakers  have  aimed  higher 
and  done  more.  They  may  point  triumphantly  to  the 
efforts  of  Brougham  to  exterminate  the  slave  trade ;  of 
Pitt,  to  procure  the  honor  and  independence  of  his  coun- 
try; of  Chalmers,  to  connect,  and  mutually  prove, 
natural  and  revealed  religion;  of  Grattan,  to  demand 
right  and  justice  for  his  injured  nation ;  of  Komilly,  to 


158  THE  CHARACTER  OF  NAPOLEON. 

reform  our  barbarous  laws;  and  of  Sheridan,  to  keep 
pure  the  administration  of  justice. 

A  striking  result  in  favor  of  Modern  Oratory  may  be 
obtained  by  comparing  the  celebrated  Oration  of  Cicero 
against  Verres,  with  Sheridan's  Invective  against  Warren 
Hastings.  Cicero  declaims  against  Verres  because  he  has 
infringed  the  rights  of  citizenship,  the  ^eculmv privileges 
of  the  Roman  State.  His  great  point  against  the  culprit 
is,  not  that  he  has  condemned  a  Roman  citizen  to  death, 
but  to  death  like  a  slave.  He  calls  on  the  Senate  to  chas- 
tise, not  the  cruelty,  not  the  injustice,  not  the  treason,  of 
Verres,  but  his  contempt  and  insolence.  In  a  word,  he 
speaks  for  Privilege  and  Pride. 

But  Sheridan,  in  his  denunciation  of  Hastings,  takes 
far  loftier  ground.  Spurning  the  arbitrary  distinctions 
of  "citizen"  and  "slave,"  he  takes  his  stand  on  the 
broad  field  of  humanity,  and  demands  equality  of  rights 
for  all  who  bear  the  human  form.  He  ranks  the  man 
above  the  citizen,  and  so  shows  himself  the  noble 
Orator. 

See  Brougham's  Essay  on  the  Eloquence  of  the  Ancients.— Collected 
Works,  vol.  iv. 
Sheridan's  Panegyric  on  Demosthenes. 
Whately's  Rhetoric. 
Hume's  Essay  on  Eloquence. 


QUESTION  : 

Is  THE  Character  of  Napoleon  Bonaparte  to  be 
Admired  ? 

No  character  being  absolutely  bad  or  good,  we  can 
only  arrive  at  judgment  of  character  by  striking  a  bal- 
ance between  the  good  qualities  and  the  bad  ones ;  this 
must,  therefore,  be  done  in  the  case  before  us. 


THE  CHARACTER  OF  NAPOLEON.  159 

The  points  to  be  admired  in  Bonaparte's  character  are: 
I.  His  clear ^  keen,  vigorous  intellect. 
This  enabled  him  to  see  the  position  of  France  at  the 
time  of  the  Revolution,  to  profit  by  the  emergency,  _^ 
and  to  raise  upon  the  ruins  of  faction,  a  strong  and 
popular  throne.  It  is  seen  in  his  choice  of  generals  and 
statesmen,  in  his  manner  of  disposing  a  field  of  bat- 
tle, in  his  military  maneuvers,  in  his  political  gov- 
ernment, in  his  celebrated  Code  Napoleon,  in  the 
rapidity  of  his  conceptions,  and  the  inexhaustible- 
ness  of  his  inventions. 
II.  His  energy  of  purpose  and  action. 
There  was  no  trifling  or  wavering  in  him;  he  instantly 
executed  the  plans  he  conceived.    Dithculties  never 
daunted,  but  always  stimulated,  him.    Witness  his 
crossing  of  the  Alps,   his  expedition  to  Egypt,  his 
march  to  Moscow. 
III.  His  courage,  boldness^  and  presence  of  mind. 
He  never  falters,   never  shrinks ;  he  is  always  cool, 
guarded,  and  himself.     His  schemes  are  invariably 
massive,  great,  and  daring. 
In  brief,  to  use  the  words  of  Channing,  the  greatness 
of  Napoleon  was  the  greatness  of  action  ;  the  sublime 
power  of  conceiving  bold  and  extensive  plans,  and  of 
constructing  and  bringing  to  bear  on  them  a  complicated 
machinery  of  means,  energies  and  arrangements.     He 
raised  himself  from  obscurity  to  a  throne,  and  changed 
the  face  of  the  world.     So  far  he  was  great,  and  such 
greatness  we  must  admire. 

But  he  had  many  faults  :  notice  first — 
His  inhumanity. 
He  was  perfectly  reckless  of  human  life,  and  would 
sacrifice  all  under  his  command  to  gain  his  ends. 
Jaffa,  Acre,  and  the  murders  of  Due  D'Enghien, 
Wright,  and  Pichegru,  will  soil  his  name  forever. 


160  THE  CHARACTER  OF  NAPOLEON. 

He  was  a  violator  of  all  law. 
He  seized  upon  independent  neutral  states,  such  as 
Leghorn,  Parma,  and  Modena,  and  compelled  tribute 
from  them.  He  robbed  Italy  of  her  treasures  of 
art,  usurped  the  throne  of  France  for  ambition's  sake 
alone,  and  respected  no  will  or  right  but  his  own. 

He  deliberately  injured  Ms  country. 
True,  he  rebuilt  Pans ;  true  he  adorned  it  with  stolen 
treasures ;  but  look  at  his  conscriptions  !  at  the  blood- 
shed of  millions  in  his  battles;  at  his  espionage;  at 
his  enslavement  of  the  press. 

He  was  as  wickedly  ambitious  a  man  as  ever  lived. 
Why  was  he  not  content  as  Emperor  of  France  !    To 
be  that  was  enough ;  but  he  aimed  at  being  Emperor 
of  the  world,  and  thus  showed  an  ambition  without 
a  parallel. 

Mark  further  his  vanity  and  egotism. 
His  selfishness  almost  surpassed  belief ;  he  did  all  for 
himself ;  thought  of  none  else.  He  regarded  himself 
as  the  greatest  of  men,  as  something  unconquerable 
and  almost  divine.  This  overweening  vanity  is  well 
seen  in  his  remark  to  the  King  of  Holland ;  ' '  Recol- 
lect that  your  first  duty  is  toward  ME,  your  second 
toward  France. 

Napoleon  exhibited  further  great  want  of  human  sym- 
pathy and  affection  ;  proof  of  which  is  to  be  found  in 
many  remarkable  instances,  but  chiefly  in  his  treatment 
of  his  wife  and  mother. 

Much,  however,  maybe  said  in  defense  of  Napoleon 

on  many  grounds  : 

I.  He  was  called  to  action  at  the  time  of  terror  and 

revolution,  and  was  placed  in  circumstances  of 

cruelty   and  selfishness  which  could  not  fail  to 

demoralize  him. 


EXECUTION  OF  CHARLES  THE  FIRST  161 

II.  He  was  called  upon  to  rule  while  too  young  to 
govern. 

III.  He  was  bred  to  a  military  life,  the  worst  possible 

school  of  morality. 

IV.  At  his  time  the  immoralities  of  politicians  and  war- 

riors were  not  only  not  reprobated,  but  admired 
and  applauded.  Falsehood  was  called  state-craft, 
and  the  atrocities  of  war  were  denominated  glories. 

See  Channiiig.— Character  of  Bonaparte. 
Col.  Mitchell's  Fall  of  Napoleon. 
Charles  Phillips's  Character  of  Napoleon. 
Sir  W.  Scott's  Life  of  Napoleon. 
Bourrienn's  Memoirs  of  Napoleon. 
Hazlitt's  Character  of  Napoleon. 
Brougham's  Statesmen  of  the  Reign  of  George  HI.  (Second  Series) 

vol.  ii.  "Napoleon." 
Lord  Jeffrey's  Essays,  vol.  ii.  p.  90  et  seq. 


QUESTION : 

Was  the  |]xecution  of  Charles  the  First  Justifi- 
able ? 

The  point  that  first  arises  here  is,  whether  death  is 
ever  a  justifiable  punishment  ?  for  if  it  be  not^  then  what- 
ever Charles  may  have  done,  the  destruction  of  him  was 
wrong.  The  tendency  of  modern  feeling  is,  perhaps, 
against  the  infliction  of  death  at  all;  but  we  must  not 
judge  by  modern  feeling.  The  theory  and  practice  of 
the  period  when  Charles  suffered  were  unhesitatingly  in 
favor  of  Capital  Punishment.  The  act,  therefore, 
judged  by  the  light  of  the  age  when  it  was  performed,  is 
in  itself  unobjectionable,  and  its  propriety  or  impro- 
priety depends  not  at  all  upon  abstract  considerations. 

The  question  we  have  principally  to  try  is  whether  the 
conduct  of  Charles  was  worthy  of  death,  according  to 
the  morality  of  the  time. 


163  EXECUTION  OF  CHARLES  THE  FIRST. 

The  supporters  of  the  aflBrmative  may  say  :  That 
Charles,  by  making  war  upon  his  people,  committed  an 
act  of  aggression  on  the  public  life,  which  was  fully  as 
heinous  as  an  attempt  at  individual  murder. 

The  asserters  of  the  negative  may  reply  :  That  Charles 
was  driven  by  opposition  and  by  evil  counsel  into  the 
course  he  took,  and  that  when  he  commenced  war  he  did 
so  in  the  firm  and  conscientious  belief  that  he  was  doing 
right ;  in  which  case  the  wicked  motive  that  animates  the 
malicious  murderer  is  by  no  means  chargeable  upon 
him. 

The  justifiability  of  King  Charles'  execution  may 
further  be  considered  as  it  is  affected  by  considerations 
of  policy. 

It  may  be  urged  on  the  one  side  :  That  the  liberty, 
well-being,  indeed  existence,  of  the  people  of  England, 
depended  upon  the  execution  of  Charles.  While  he  was 
in  power,  the  British  people  were  subject  to  arbitrary  and 
unconstitutional  tyranny,  were  taxed  in  their  pockets, 
coerced  in  their  religion,  threatened  in  their  lives.  There 
was  no  hope  that  he  would  amend,  if  he  were  restored, 
for  he  showed  no  remorse  and  promised  no  reform.  He 
might  have  been  kept  in  captivity,  but  this  would  have 
plunged  England  into  continual  civil  war  for  his  sake. 
To  destroy  him  was  to  give  a  death-blow  to  his  party, 
and  to  give  England  its  only  chance  of  peace  and  order. 

On  the  other  side  it  may  be  maintained  :  That  subse- 
quent events  entirely  prove  the  impolicy  of  the  act.  So 
far  from  destroying  the  royalist  party,  it  strengthened 
their  ranks  by  attaching  to  it  all  who  pitied  the  tragical 
end  of  Charles  ;  a  party  ever  increasing  during  the  Pro- 
tectorate of  Cromwell,  and  strong  enough  after  Crom- 
well's death  to  bring  back  a  far  worse  king,  in  the  person 
of  Charles  the  Second. 

It  may  be  fairly  questioned  whether  the  licentiousness 
of  the  Second  Charles  did  not  entail  upon  the  English 


BARBAROUS  OR  CIVILIZED  MAN.  163 

people  a  far  greater  amount  of  evil  than  would  have  re- 
sulted from  the  continued  tyranny  of  Charles  the  First. 

A  very  important  question  hearing  on  this  matter  is,  as 
to  the  right  of  the  destroyers  of  Charles. 

On  one  side  it  may  he  said  :  Who  made  them  his 
judges  ?  By  what  right,  constitutional  or  moral,  did 
they  arraign  and  destroy  him  ? 

And  on  the  other  hand  it  may  he  replied  : 

That  tyranny  always  justifies  rebellion,  and  aggression 
always  confers  the  right  of  retaliation.  The  emergency 
of  self-preservation  was,  it  may  be  said,  the  right  under 
which  Charles's  judges  tried  and  punished  him. 

See  Lord  Jeffrey's  Essays,  vol.  ii.  p.  12. 

Macaulay's  Critical  Essays,  vol.  i.  pp.  135-187  ;  425-490. 

Statesmen  of  the  Commonwealth,  in  "Lardner's  Cabinet  Cyclopasdia." 

Lady  Willoughby's  Diary  of  the  Time  of  Charles  the  First. 

•  Macaulay's  Hist  ry  of  England. 
Clarendon's  History  of  the  Great  Rebellion. 
Cattermole's  Civil  War. 

Aikin's  Charles  the  First. 
Mrs.  Hutchinson's  Memoirs. 
Forster's  Life  of  Cromwell. 

•  Miss  Mitford'^  Tragedy  "  Charles  the  First." 


QUESTION  : 

Which  is  the  more  happy,  a  Barbarous,  or  a  Civ- 
ilized, Man  ? 

It  may  be  said  that  the  savage  is  more  happy  than  the 
civilized  man,  inasmuch  as  : 

I.  His  free  and  unrestrained  life  makes  him  physically 
healthier. 
11.  His  wants  are  more  simple  and  more  easily  satis- 
fied. 
III.  He  is  free  from  the  cares,  anxieties,  jealousies,  fears, 
and  ambitions  of  civilized  life. 


164  BARBAROUS  OR  CIVILIZED  MAN. 

IV.  He  is  less  liable  to  disorder,   either  of  body  or  of 
mind. 
y.  He  is  free  from  the  vices  of  society  : — intemperance, 
hypocrisy,  deceit,  and  fraud. 

In  opposition  it  may  be  said  : 
I.  That  the  freedom  of  life  which  the  savage  enjoys  is 
but  a  poor  substitute  for  the  comforts  of  shelter, 
clothing,  and  food,  which  the  civilized  man  enjoys ; 
the  best  proof  of  which  is  found  in  the  universal 
fact,  that  whenever  the  savage  gets  within  reach 
of  the  civilized  man's  habits,  he  adopts  them; 
while  the  civilized  man  is  never  attracted  toward 
the  habits  of  the  savage. 
II.  That,  although  the  wants  of  the  savage  are  simpler 
and  fewer  than  the  wants  of  the  civilized  man,  his 
pleasures  are  also  fewer,  for  he  enjoys  none  of  the 
delights  of  thought,  of  affection,  of  social  happi- 
ness, of  hope,  and  of  religious  belief. 

III.  That,  although  he  is  free  from  the  anxieties  of  life, 

he  is  also  without  knowledge  of  its  privileges  and 
pleasures,  both  of  sense  and  soul. 

IV.  That,  although  he  is  less  liable  to  physical  and  men- 

tal disease,  he  is  also  less  capable  of  enjoyment.  He 
has  no  disease,  but  he  has  no  happy  health  ; 
neither  his  bodily  nor  his  spiritual  powers  are 
turned  to  good  account. 
V.  That,  although  he  is  partially  free  from  the  vices  of 
society,  he  is  also  unacquainted  with  its  virtues.  Be- 
nevolence, pity,  honor,  heroism,  constancy,  endu- 
rance, generosity,  patriotism,  fortitude,  and  resist- 
ance to  temptation,  are  all  unknown  to  him  ; 
while  he  is  free  from  the  thorns  he  is  also  without 
the  flowers  of  life. 

The  state  of  the  savage  is  darkness — darkness  mental 
and  moral.    The  thrilling  delights  of  thought,  of  reflec- 


BARBAROUS  OR  CIVILIZED  MAN.  165 

tion,  and  of  judgment,  are  never  his  ;  his  best  ideas  are 
vague,  idle,  dreamy,  and  useless.  The  unspeakable 
pleasures  of  home,  of  love,  of  relationship,  of  friendship, 
and  of  social  intercourse,  are  altogether  unknown  by 
him.  The  happiness  that  waits  on  an  approving  con- 
science, the  ineffable  pleasure  that  follows  a  good  deed 
done,  or  a  bad  deed  avoided,  is  a  stranger  to  the  savage 
breast.  Above  all,  the  exquisite  happiness  the  civilized 
man  derives  from  religious  impression  and  belief,  the 
unutterable  joy  which  he  feels  in  the  conviction  that  he 
has  a  kind  Father  in  Heaven  on  whom  he  can  implicitly 
rely,  and  in  the  certainty  that  he  is  immortal,  and  shall 
never  taste  of  death,  all  this  is  entirely  unfelt  and  un- 
known to  the  barbarian.     The  poet  says : 

"Where  ignorance  is  bliss  'tis  folly  to  be  wise." 
But  ignorance  is  never  bliss. 

See  The  History  of  Civilization.    By  W.  A.  Mackinnon,  Esq  ,  M.  P. 
Hobbes's  Treatise  on  Human  Nature.—'*  Love  of  Knowledge.'* 
Rousseau's  "Discours." 

Hume's  Essays,  "  On  Refinement  in  the  Arts,"  vol.  i.  p.  285. 
Goldsmith's  Citizen  of  the  World,  Letters  XI.  and  LXXXII, 
Angas's  Savage  Life. 


PART  IE-QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION. 


1.  Which   was  the  greater  Man.  Oliver  Cromwelt  or 
Napoleon  Bonaparte  f 

See  Carlyle's  Letters  and  Speeches  of  Cromwell. 
Channing's  Character  of  Napoleon, 
Southey's  Cromwell. 
Scott's  Life  of  Napoleon, 
Mitchell's  Fall  of  Napoleon. 
Hazlitt's  Life  of  Napoleon. 
Carlyle's  Hero-Worship.     ^'  The  Hero  as  King." 
Robert  Hall  on  Bonaparte. 
Macaulay's  Critical  Essays,  vol.  i.  pp.  180-187. 
Hallam's  Constitutional  History. 

Lord  Brougham's  Statesmen  in  the  Reign  of  George  III. 
"  Napoleon." 


2.  JVas    the    Execution    of    Mary    Queen    of    Scots 
Justifiable  f 

See  History  of  England.— Hume. 
P.  Fraser  Ty tier's  Life  of  Mary. 
Miss  Strickland's  Letters  of  Mary. 
Bell's  Life  of  Mary. 
Mrs.  Jameson's  Life  of  Mary. 
Robertson's  History  of  Scotland. 
Edinburgh  Review,  vol.  xliv.  p.  37. 
Miss  Benger's  Life  of  Mary. 

Note. — ^This  discussion  will  embrace  the  following  considerations  : 
For  what  crimes  did  Mary  suffer  ?  Did  she  commit  the  offenses  al- 
leged against  her  ?  And  had  the  law  of  England  any  jurisdiction 
over  her  ?  ^ 


QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION.  167 

3.  Hxis  the  Invention  of  Gunpowder  been  of  benefit  to 
Mankind  ? 

See  Channing  on  War. 

Gibbon's  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  chap.  Ixv. 
Edinburgh  Review,  vol.  v.  p.  471. 
Wilkinson's  Engines  of  War. 
Note. — It  is  intended  to  inquire  by  this  question,  Whether  Gun- 
powder, by  making  war  more  dreadful  and  abhorrent,  has  not  tend- 
ed to  lead  mankind  to  its  discontinuance  ?  whether,  in  fact,  perfection 
in  War  does  not  necessarily  lead  to  the  preference  of  Peace  ? 

The  use  of  Gunpowder  in  Mechanics  may  be  taken  into  consider- 
ation with  advantage  to  the  discussion. 


4.  WJiich  is  the  more  valuable  Member  of  Society,  a 
great  Mechanician  or  a  great  Poet  f 

See  Channing  on  the  Age. 
Emerson's  Essays. 
Edinburgh  Review,  vol  xlvi.  p.  365. 

,  vol.  xlvii.  pp.  184-202. 

M'CuUoch's  Geographical  Dictionary.     Art.  **  British  Em- 
pire." 
M'Cfllloch's  PoHtical  Economy.    Passim, 

Note. — This  question  turns  upon  the  comparative  values  of  a 
Great  Doer  and  a  Great  Thinker,  and  lies  between  the  utility  of  Me- 
chanics and  Morals  ;  of  Physics  and  Metaphysics.  It  is  the  belief  of 
many  of  the  chief  writers  of  the  day,  that  our  age  is  too  mechanical, 
and  needs  to  be  spiritualized  ;  this  debate  will  open  that  question. 


5.  Which   was   the   greater    Orator,    Demosthenes  or 
Cicero  f 

See  Lord  Brougham's  Essay  on  the  Eloquence  of  the  Ancients 
Collected  Speeches,  vol.  iv. 
Edinburgh  Review,  vol.  xxviii.  p.  60. 

■ ,  vol.  xxxiii.  pp.  226-246. 

■ ,  vol.  xxxvi.  pp.  86-109. 

Dr.  Anthon's  Cicero.    With  EngHsh  Commentary. 
Note.— The  discussion  of  this  question  must  include  reference  to 
style,  aim,  and  effect ;  artistical,  mental  and  moral  power. 


168  QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION. 

6.   Which  is  the  more  despicable  Character,  the  ilypo- 
crite  or  the  Liar  I 
See  Lord  Bacon's  Essay  on  Truth. 

Tillotson,  on  the  Advantages  of  Truth  and  Sincerity. 
Bishop  Hall.     Character  of  the  Hypocrite. 
Martin  Chuzzlewit.     Character  of  Pecksniff. 


7.  Has  the  Fear  of  Punishment,  or  the  Hope  of  Reward, 

the  greater  Influence  on  Human  Conduct  f 
See  Adam  Smith's  Theory  of  the  Moral  Sentiments. 

Mill  on  the  Human  Mind. 

Bentham's  Springs  of  Action. 

Dugald  Stewart  on  the  Mind. 

Bentham's  Kationale  of  Keward  and  Punishment.. 
Note. — This  question  involves  considerations  of  great  importance. 
It  has  to  do  with  Education,  Government,  and  Eeligion.  The  fear 
of  punishment  is  the  principle  usually  supposed  to  influence  us  ;  and 
upon  this  principle,  for  the  most  part,  education^  laws,  and  religious 
instruction  are  founded  ;  but  riany  of  the  wisest  men  are  beginning 
to  doubt  this  system. 


8.  7s  Corporal  Punishment  justifiable  f 

See  Edgeworth's  Practical  Education. 
Wilderspin's  Education  of  the  Young. 
Marshall's  Military  Miscellany. 
Hansard,  "  Debates  on  Flogging  in  the  Army." 
Edinburgh  Review,  vol.  xii.  p.  420.. 
Sydney  Taylor's  Works,  p.  195. 


9.   Was  Brutus  justified  in  killing  Ccesar  f 

See  the  Speech  of  Brutus  in  Shakspeare's  Julius  Caesar.  Act  III. 
Scene  2.  * 

Sir  James  Mackintosh's  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  274,  Yol.  ii.  pp, 

318-325. 
Hume's  Essays,  vol.  i.  pp.  471,  &c. 

■ ,  vol.  ii.  p.  228. 

Note. — This  question  must  be  tried  by  the  morals  of  the  time 
when  the  act  took  place,  and  not  by  the  present  standard  of  morality. 
It  is  quite  necessary  to  make  this  distinction. 


QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION.  169 

10.  Should  Emulation  he  encouraged  in  Education  f 

See  ^dge worth's  Practical  Education. 
Godwin's  Eeflections  on  Education. 
Cowper's  Tirocinium. 

Adam  Smith's  Theory  of  the  Moral  Sentiments. 
Coleridge's  Lines,  entitled,  "  Love,  Hope^  and  Patience  in 

Education." 
Hobbes  on  Envy  and  Emulation. 
Sydney  Smith's  Works,  vol.  pp.  221-231. 

Note. — The  system  of  prize-giving  in  education  has  supporters 
and  opponents,  both  so  determined,  that  a  discussion  upon  the  sub- 
ject cannot  fail  to  be  interesting  and  instructive.  Philosophy  and 
experience  should  both  be  referred  to  in  the  debate. 


11.  Which  was  the  greater  Poet^  Milton  or  Homer  f 

See  Coleridge  on  the  Greek  Poets. 
Channing  on  Milton. 
Blair's  Lectures. 
«  Campbell  on  Milton. 

Robert  Hall  on  Poetic  Genius. 
Thirlwall's  Greece,  vol.  i.  p.  24. 
Macaulay's  Essays,  vol.  i.  p.  1-32. 

Brande's  Dictionary  of  Science,  Literature  and  Art.    *'  Epic 
Poetry,"  and  the  authorities  there  quoted. 

Note. — This  debate  will  turn  upon  the  facts  that  Homer  is  the 
more  real,  life-like,  and  human  poet,  while  Milton  is  the  more  im- 
aginative, sublime,  and  spiritual ;  the  decision  must  depend  upon 
which  are  the  nobler  qualities. 


12.  Is  Military  Renown  a  fit  Object  of  Ambition  f 

See  Channing's  Essay  on  War. 

Channing  on  Napoleon  Bonaparte. 
Childe  Harold,  Canto  I.     War. 
Robert  Montgomery's  Picture  of  War. 
Robert  Hall  on  the  Miseries  of  War. 


170  QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION. 

13.  Is  Ambition  a  Vice  or  a  Virtue  f 
See  Hughes'  Essay  on  Ambition  in  the  **  Guardian." 
Lord  Bacon's  Essay  on  Ambition. 
Wolsey's  Advice  to  Cromwell.    Play  of  Henry  VIII. 
Paradise  Lost.     Satan's  Address  to  the  Sun. 
Adam  Smith  on  Misdirected  Ambition. 
Bishop  Watson's  Sermons  to  Young  Persons. 
M'Culloch's  Political  Economy,  pp.  527-530. 


14.  Has  Novel-reading  a  Moral  Tendency  f 

See  Sir  W.  Scott's  Criticisms  on  Novels  and  Eomances. 

Scott's  Treatise  on  Komance. 

The  Edinburgh  Eevie"sf ,  vol.  xxiv.  pp.  310,  &c. 

Akenside's  Pleasures  of  Imagination. 

Lord  Jeffrey's  Essays,  vol.  iii.  p.  440. 

,  vol.  iv.  p.  517. 

Goldsmith's  Citizen  of  the  World,  Letter  LIII. 
Note. — It  may  seem  that  this  question  barely  admits  of  discussion, 
for  moral  novels  must,  of  course,  have  a  moral  tendency  ;  but  at  least 
the  debate  may  serve  to  lead  the  debaters  to  a  proper  selection  of 
novels. 


15.  Js  the  Character  of  Queen  Elizabeth  deserving  of 
our  Admiration  f 
See  Hume's  History  of  England. 

Lucy  Akin's  Memoirs  of  Elizabeth. 

Sir  W.  Scott's  Kenilworth— for  a  faithful  Portraiture  of  Eliza- 
beth. 
Miss  Strickland's  Queens  of  England. 
Sharon  Turner's  History  of  Elizabeth's  Keign. 
Sir  James  Mackintosh's  Works,  vol.  iii.  pp.  282-284. 
Macaulay's  Critical  Essays,  vol.  ii.  pp.  1-34. 


16.  Is  England  rising  or  falling  as  a  Nation  f 

See  Bacon's  Essay  on  States :  and  his  Essay  on  the  Greatness  of 
Kingdoms. 
Sir  James  Mackintosh's  Works,  vol.  iii.  pp.  500,  501. 
Edinburgh  Review,  vol.  xxi.  pp.  22  et  seq. 
M'Culloch's  Statistics  of  the  British  Empire. 
Compare  the  Elements  of  Modern  with  the  Elements  of  Ancient 
Prosperity. 


QtJESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION.  171 

17.  Has  Nature  or  Education  the  greater  Influence  in 
the  Formation  of  Character  f 

See  Locke's  Thoughts  on  Education. 
Combe's  Constitution  of  Man. 
Godwin  on  Education. 
Edgeworth  on  Education. 
Watts  on  the  Mind. 
Aime  Martin  on  Education. 
Lord  Jeffrey's  Essays,  vol.  i.  p.  138. 


18.  Which  is  the  more  valuable  Metal,  Gold  or  Iron  f 

See  lire's  Dictionary  of  Arts,  &c.    Art.   *'Iron." 
Leyden's  Ode  to  an  Indian  Gold  Coin, 
Jacob's  Inquiry  into  the  Precious  Metals. 
Holland's  Metal  Manufactures,  ''Lardner's  Cabinet  Cyclo- 
paedia." 
A  Paper  on  the  Uses  of  Gold,  "Maunder's  Universal  Class 
Book  : "  also  one  on  Iron. 
Note. — This  is  a  question  between  Show   and    Value — between 
ornament  and  utility. 


19.  Is  War  in  any  case  justifiable  f 

See  Sidney  Smith's  Sermons  on  ''Invasion." 
The  Tracts  of  the  Peace  Society. 
Chalmers  on  the  Hatefulness  of  War. 
Channing  on  War. 

Dr.  Johnson's  Thoughts  on  the  Falkland  Islands. 
Robert  Hall  on  War. 

Burke  on  the  Impeachment  of  Hastings. 
Edinburgh  Review,  vol.  xxxix.  pp.  6-18. 

^  vol.  XXXV.  p.  409. 

Sir  James  Mackintosh's  Works,  vol.  ii.  pp.  320-327  ;  iii.  200, 
252. 


20.  Has  the  Discovery  of  America  been  beneficial  to  the 
World  f 

See  Lord  Jeffrey's  Essays,  vol.  ii.  pp.  188-209.    Article  ''Colum- 
bus." 
Sidney  Smith's  Works,  vol.  i.  pp.  280,  362. 


172  QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION. 

See  RobertBon's  History  of  America. 

Washington  Irving's  Life  of  Cohimbiis. 
Martin's  British  Colonies.     '  *  North  America." 


21.  Can  any  Circumstances  justify  a  Departure  from 
Truth  ? 

See  Paley's  Moral  and  Political  Philosophy. 
Beattie's  Essay  on  Truth. 
Bentham's  Principles  of  Morals. 
Bacon  on  Truth. 
Combe's  Moral  Philosophy. 
Robert  Hall  on  Expediency. 
Lord  Jeffrey's  Essays,  vol.  iii.  pp.  303-310. 


22.  Is  Spo7^ting  justifiable  f 

See  Sidney  Smith's  Works,  vol.  i.     **  Game  Laws." 
Strutt  on  the  Sports  and  Pastimes  of  England, 
Walker's  Manly  Exercises. 
Walton  on  Angling. 
Christopher  North's  Recreations. 
Nimrod  on  ''The  Chase,  the  Turf,  and  the  Rod.' 
Scrope's  Deer  Stalking. 
Pamphlets  by  the  Hon.  G.  Berkeley. 


23.  Does  not  Virtue  necessarily  produce  Happiness, 
and  does  not  Vice  necessarily  produce  Misery  in 
this  Life  f 

See  Bentham's  Rationale  of  Reward. 

Logan's  Sermon — "There  is  no  peace,  saith  my  God,  to  the 

wicked." 
Melvill's  Sermon  on  the  same  Text. 
Pope  on  Virtue. 
Macbeth's  Soliloquy. 
James  Harris  on  Virtue,  Man's  Interest. 


QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION.  173 

24.  From  which  does  the  Mind  gain  the  more  Knowledge, 
Reading  or  Observation  f 

See  Gibbon's  Abstract  of  his  Eeadings. 
Lord  Bacon  on  Study. 
Mason  on  8elf-Cultnre. 
Todd's  Student's  Manual. 
Carlyle  on  Books.     ''Hero-Worship." 
Channing  on  Self-Culture. 
Robert  Hall  on  the  Advantages  of  Knowledge. 
Edinburgh  Review,  vol.  xxxiv.  p.  384. 


25.  Have  the  Gold  Mines  of  Spain,  or  the  Coal  Mines  of 
England,  been  more  beneficial  to  the  World  f 

See  Hood's  Poem — ''Miss  Kiimansegg,"  for  a  vivid  description 
of  the  baneful  influences  of  Gold. 
A  Paper  on  the  Uses  of  Gold,  in  "Maunder's  Universal  Class 

Book." 
M'CuUoch's  Commercial  Dictionaiy.    Art.  "  Coal." 
Geographical  Dictionary.     Art.   "British   Em- 
pire." 


2Q.  Which  was  the  greater  General,  Hannibal  or  Alex- 
ander f 

See  Plutarch's  Life  of  Alexander. 
History  of  Rome. 
Thirlwall's  History  of  Greece. 


27.   Which  was  the  greater  Poet,  Dryden  or  Pope  f 

See  Lord  Jeffrey's  l^ssays,  vol.  i.  pp.  163-166. 
Sir  W.  Scott's  Life  of  Dryden. 
Campbell's  British  Poets. 
Dr.  Johnson's  Parallel  between  Dryden  and  Pope.     "Lives 

of  the  Poets." 
Sir  James  Mackintosh's  Works,  vol.  ii.  pp.  520-522. 
Lord  Byron's  Strictures  on  Bowles. 


174  QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION. 

28.   Which  has  done  the  greater  service  to  Truths  Philoso- 
phy or  Poetry  f 

See  Edinburgh  Keview,  vol.  xxi.  p.  294. 
Bacon's  Advancement  of  Learning. 
Also  the  Works  quoted  in  a  previous  theme  in  this  Volume, 

Note. — Philosophy  is  here  meant  to  signify  intellectual  wisdom  ; 
and  poetry,  that  inspiration  respecting  truth  which  great  poets  ex- 
hibit, and  which  seems  to  be  quite  independent  of  acquired  knowl-  . 
edge.  Philosophy  is  cultivated  reason,  poetry  is  a  moral  instinct  to- 
ward the  True  and  Beautiful.  To  decide  the  question  we  must  see 
what  we  owe  on  the  one  hand  to  the  discoveries  of  our  philosophers, 
to  Socrates,  Plato,  Epicurus,  Bacon,  Newton,  Locke  ;  and  on  the 
other,  for  what  amount  and  sort  of  truth  we  are  indebted  to  the  in- 
tuition and  inspiration  of  our  poets,  as  Homer,  Milton,  Dante, 
Shakespeare. 


39.  Is  an  Advocate  justified  in  defending  a  Man  whom 
he  knoivs  to  be  Guilty  of  the  Crime  with  which 
he  is  charged  f 

See  Sidney  Smith's  Works,  vol.  i.  "On  Counsel  being  allowed 
to  Prisoners." 

Bentham.    Judicial  Establishment. 

Brougham  on  the  Duty  of  a  Barrister. 

Paley's  Moral  Philosophy. 

Punch's  Letters  to  his  Son.  *'0n  the  Choice  of  a  Pro- 
fession. 

Sidney  Taylor's  Works,  vol.  i.  pp.  102,  103. 


30.  Is  it  likely  that  England  will  sink  into  the  Decay 
which  befell  the  Nations  of  Antiquity  f 

See  Playfair's  Inquiry  into  the  fall  of  Nations. 
Bacon's  Essay  on  Kingdoms. 
Volney's  Kliins  of  Empires. 

Gibbon's  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Koman  Empire. 
Southey's  Progress  and  Prospects  of  Society. 
Vaughan's  Age  of  Great  Cities. 


QUESTIONS   FOR  DISCUSSION.  175 

31.  A7^e  Lord  Byron's  Writings  Moral  in  their  Ten- 
dency f 

See  Lord  Jeffrey's  Essays,  vol.  ii.  pp.  308-371. 

Macaulay's  Critical  Essays,  vol.  i.  pp.  311,  352. 
Sydney  Taylor's  Worts,  pp.  288. 

Note. — The  works  of  Byron  must  here  be  looked  at  as  a  whole, 
and  not  be  judged  by  isolated  passages  ;  they  must  be  tried,  too,  by 
eternal,  and  not  by  fashionable,  morality. 


32.  Do  the  Mechanicians  of  Modeim  equal  those  of 
Ancient  Times  f 

See  Fosbrooke  and  Dunham's  Roman  Arts  and  Manufactures. 

Greek  Ditto. 

Wilkinson's  Ancient  Egypt. 
Pettigrew's  Ditto. 
Maurice's  Ancient  Hindostan. 
Heeren's  Historical  Researches. 


33.   Which  is  the  greater  Civilizer,  the  Statesman  or  the 
Poet  f 

See  Debate  No.  I.  p.  17. 

Carlyle's  Hero  Worship.     *'  The  Hero  as  Poet." 
Guicciardini's  Maxims  ;  Martin's  Translation. 
Also  the  authorities  quoted  in  Debate  I.  p.  33. 


34.  Which  is  the  greater  Writer,   Charles  Dickens  or 
Lord  Lytton  f 

See  The  Edinburgh  Review,  the  Quarterly,  Blackwood's  Maga- 
zine, Horn's  Spirit  of  the  Age  Frazer's  Magazine  : 
various  articles  on  the  subject  during  the  last  twenty-five 
years. 


35.  Is  the  Principle  of  Utility  a  Safe  Moral  Guide  ? 

See  Bentham's  Works  ;  Lord  Jeffrey's  Essays,  vol.  iii.  pp.  303- 
310. 
Madame  De  Stael's  opinions  thereon. 


176  QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION. 

See  An  able  article  on  the  subject  in  the  New  Monthly  Magazine 
for  1837. 
Robert  Hall  on  Expediency. 
Paley's  Moral  Philosophy. 
Hume's  Essays.     ''Why  Utility  pleases." 
Sir  James  Mackintosh's  Works,  vol.  i.  pp.  15,  16,  193  and  242. 
Dymond's  Essays,  pp.  4,  28,  123. 


36.  Was  the  Deposition  of  Louis  XVI.  justifiable. 

See  Carlyle's,  Thiers',  Be  Stael's  and  Macfarlane's  History  of  the 
French  Revolution. 
Sir  James  Mackintosh's  Works,  vol.  iii.  pp.  3-352. 
Lord  Jeffrey's  Essays,  vol.  ii.  pp.  40-45. 
Historic  Fancies.    By  the  Hon.  G.  Smythe. 


37.  Is  the  Use  of  Oaths  for  Civil  Purposes  expedient  f 

See  Bentham's  Tract  on  the  Needlessness  of  an  Oath. 
Hansard.     ''  Debates  in  Parliament "  on  this  subject. 
Dymond's  JEssays,  pp.  58-67. 


38.  Is  a  Classical  Education  Essential  to  an  American 
Gentleman  ? 

See  Milton  on  Education. 

Whewell's  University  Education. 

Locke's  Thoughts  on  Education. 

Amos's  Lectures  on  the  Advantages  of  a  Classical  Education. 

Robert  Hall  on  Classical  Learning. 

Sydney  Smith's  Works,  vol.  i.  pp.  183-199. 

Edinburgh  Review,  vol.  xv.  pp.  41-51. 


39.  Are  Colonies  advantageous  to  the  Mother  Country  f 

See  M'Cillloch's  Edition  of  Smith's  Wealth  of  Nations. 
Merivale's  Lectures  on  Colonies. 
Torrens  on  Colonization. 
Sir  James  Mackintosh's  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  325. 
Brande's  Dictionary  of  Science,  Literature,  and  Art.     A.rt. 
**  Colonies,"  and  the  works  there  quoted. 


QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION.  177 

40.  Which  does  the  most  to  produce  Crime — Poverty, 
Wealth,  or  Ignorance  f 

See  Dumas'  Celebrated  Crimes. 

Bacon  on  the  Uses  of  Knowledge. 

Dr.  Harris's  Mammon. 

Foster's  Essay  on  the  Evils  of  Popular  Ignorance. 

Robert  Hall  on  the  Hardships  of  Poverty. 

Sir  James  Mackintoshes  Works,  vol.  iii.  pp.  371-376. 

Edinburgh  Review,  vol.  xlviii.  pp.  176-181. 


41.  Is  the  Unanimity  required  from  Juries  conducive 
to  the  Attainment  of  the  Ends  of  Justice  f 

See  Blackstone's  Commentaries  on  the  Laws. 
Bentham's  Judicial  Establishment. 
Bentham  on  Government  and  Special  Juries. 
Stephens's  Commentaries  on  the  Law. 
Sydney  Taylor's  Works,  pp.  392,  397,  413. 


42.  Is  it  not  the  Duty  of  a  Government  to  establish  a 
System  of  National  Education  f 

See'liOcke's  Thoughts  on  Education. 
Wyse  on  Education. 
Channing  on  Education. 
James's  Educational  Institutions  of  Germany. 
Fox's  Lectures  on  Education. 
Simpson's  Popular  Education. 
Godwin's  Reflections  on  Education. 
Rousseau's  Emile. 
Melvill's  University  Sermons. 
Robert  Hall  on  Knowledge. 
Life  of  WiUiam  Allen,  pp.  84^86'. 


43.  Are  the  intellectual  Faculties  of  the  Dark  Races  of 
Mankind  essentially  inferior  to  those  of  the  White  f 

See  Lawrence's  Natural  History  of  Man. 

Prichard's  Physical  History  of  Mankind. 
Buffon's  Physical  History. 


178  QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION. 

See  Elliotson's  Physiology. 

Combe  on  the  Constitution  of  Man. 

Also  Brande's  Dictionary  of  Science,  Literature,  and  Art, 
Art.  **  Negroes  ; "  and  the  authorities  there  cited. 


44.  Is  Solitary  Confinement  an  effective  Punishment  f 

See  Works  on  Prison  in  Question  No.  45. 
Note.— This  discussion  should  include  the  value  of  Solitary  Con- 
finement as  a  punishment,   and  its    reformatory  effects   on   the 
criminal. 


45.  Should  not  all  Punishment  be  Reformatory  f 

See  Bentham  on  Punishment. 

Beccaria  on  Crimes  and  Punishments. 
Report  of  the  Prison  Discipline  Society. 
Howard's  State  of  the  Prisons. 
Romilly's  Memoirs. 

Edinburgh  Review,  vol.  xxii.  pp.  1-26. 
Adshead's  Prisons  and  Prisoners. 


46.  Is  a  Limited  Monarchy,  like  that  of  England,  the 
best  form  of  Government  f 

See  Delolme  on  the  Constitution. 
Hallam's  Constitutional  History. 
De  Tocqueville's  Democracy  in  America. 
Edinburgh  Review,  vol.  ii.  pp.  275,  276. 
Hume's  Essays,  vol.  ii.  pp.  129-131. 
Lord  Jeffrey's  Essays,  vol.  iv.  pp.  4-18,  114,  115. 


47.  Is  not  Private  Virtue,  essentially  requisite  to  Great- 
ness of  Public  Character  f 

See  Dymond's  Essays,  pp.  70-79. 


48.  Is  Eloquence  a  Gift  of  Nature,  or  may  it  be 

acquired  f 
See  the  works  quoted  in  Debate  X.  p.  184. 


QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION.  179 

49.  Is  Genius  an  innate  Capacity  f 

5  Grisenthwaite's  Essay  on  Genius. 
Akenside's  Pleasures  of  Imagination. 
Mill's  Analysis  of  the  Human  Mind. 
Dr.  Brown's  Philosophy  of  the  Mind. 
Locke  on  the  Understanding. 
Dugald  Stewart's  Elements  of  the  Human  Mind. 
Eeid's  Inquiry  into  the  Mind. 
Sir.  W.  Temple's  Essay  on  Poetical  Genius. 
Kev.  Robert  Hall  on  Poetic  Genius. 
Edinburgh  Review,  vol.  xxxiv.  pp.  82-88. 


50.  Is  a  rude  or  a  refined  Age  the  more  favorable  to  the 
Production  of  Works  of  Imagination  f 

See  Sydney  Taylor's  Works,  p.  169. 
Southey's  Progress  of  Society. 
Jeffrey's  Essays. 
Campbell's  British  Poets. 
Hazlitt's  Criticism  on  British  Poetry. 
Edinburgh  Review,  vol.  xxxvii.  pp.  410-412. 

,  vol.  xlii.  pp.  306,  307. 

,  vol.  xlviii.  pp.  50,  51. 

,  vol.  xxxiv.  p.  449. 


51 .  Is  the  Shakespearian  the  Augustan  Age  of  English 
Literature  f 

See  Lord  Jeffrey's  Essays,  vol.  i.  pp.  81-161  ;  ii.  pp.  315-342  ;  iii. 
p.  446. 

Hazlitt's  Criticism. 
Sir  W.  Scott  on  Poetry. 
Campbell's  British  Poets. 
Aiken's  British  Poets. 
Hume's  History  of  England. 
Schlegel's  Lectures  on  Literature. 


52.  Is  there  any  Standard  of  Taste  f 
See  Alison  on  Taste. 

Burke  on  the  SubUme  and  Beautiful. 


180  QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION. 

See  Lord  Kame's  Elements  of  Criticism. 

Lord  Jeffrey's  Essays,  vol.  i.  p.  75  ;  ii.  p.  228,  &c. 
Edinburgh  Review,  xlii.  pp.  409-414. 
Hume's  Essays. 


53.  Ought  Pope  to  rank  in  the  First  Class  of  Poets  f 

See  Campbell's  British  Poets. 
Aiken's  Do. 

Byron's  Defense  of  Pope, 
Bowles  on  Pope. 
Lord  Jeffrey's  Essays,  vol.  ii. 
Hazlitt  on  the  British  Poets. 
Roscoe's  Edition  of  Pope. 


54.  Has  the  Introduction  of  Machinery  been  generally 
beneficial  to  Mankind  f 

See  Babbage  on  Machinery. 

Chalmer's  Political  Economy. 

M'Culloch's  Political  Economy,  pp.  100-206. 


55.  Which  produce  the  greater  Happiness^  the  pleasures 
of  Hope  or  of  Memory  f 

See  Rogers'  Pleasures  of  Memory. 
Campbell's  Pleasures  of  Hope. 
Abercrombie  on  the  Moral  Feelings. 
Adam  Smith's  Theory  of  the  Moral  Sentiments. 
Hume's  Essay  on  the  Passions. 


56.  Is  the  Existence  of  Parties  in  a  State  favorable  to 
the  Public  Welfare  f 

See  The  History  of  Party.    By  G.  W.  Cooke. . 

Essays  written,  in  the  Intervals  of  Business.     "  On  Party 

Spirit." 
Hume's  Essay  on  Parties,  &c. 
Lord  Jeffrey's  Essays,  vol.  iv.  pp.  34r-36. 
Edinburgh  Review,  vol.  xx.  p.  343. 
Dymond's  Essays,  pp.  117-119. 


QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION.  181 

57.  Is  there  any  Ground  for  believing  in  the  ultimate 
Perfection  and  universal  Happiness  of  fhe 
Human  Race  f 

See  Southey's  Progress  and  Prospects  of  Society. 
Channing's  Works  generally. 

Fichte's  Destination  of  Man.    Translated  by  Mrs.  Sinnett. 
Lord  Jeffrey's  Essays,  vol.  i.  pp.  85-92 ,  ii.  p.  212,  &c. 


58.  Is  Co-operation  more  adapted  to  promote  the  Virtue 
and  Happiness  of  Mankind  ihan  Competition^ 

See  Channing's  Remarks  on  Associations. 

Report  of  the  Co-operative  Knowledge  Association. 


59.  Was  the  Banishment  of  Napoleon  to  St.  Helena  a 
justifiable  Proceeding  ? 

See  Sir.  W.  Scott's  Life  of  Napoleon. 
Alison's  History  of  Europe. 
Hazlitt's  Life  of  Napoleon. 
Montholon's  Memoirs  of  Napoleon. 
Bourrienne's  Do. 

History  of  the  French  Empire.    By  Thiers. 
Mrs.  Abel's  Napoleon. 


00.  Ought  Persons  to  be  excluded  from  the  Civil  Offices 
on  account  of  their  Religious  Opinions  f 

See  Locke's  Thoughts  on  Toleration. 
Sir  G.  Mackenzie  on  Bigotry. 
Bacon  on  Unity  of  Religions. 

T.  Moore  on  Corruption  and  Intolerance.    Coll.  Works. 
Peter  Plymley's  Letters.  * 

Sir  James  Mackintosh's  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  116. 
Sydney  Smyth's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  232  ;  ii.  pp.  1-23. 
Macaulay's  Critical  Essays,  vol.  ii,  pp.  432-502. 


Im  QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION. 

61.  Which  exercises  the  greater  Influence  on  the  Civili' 
zation  and  Happiness  of  the  Human  Race,  the 
Male  or  the  Female  Mind  f 

See  Aime  Martin  on  the  Education  of  Mothers. 
Woman's  Mission. 

Woman  and  her  Master.    By  Lady  Morgan. 
R.  Montgomery  on  the  Education  of  Females. 
Priests,  Women  and  Families.     By  Michelet.     Translated 

by  Cocks. 
Female  Disciple  of  the  Early  Christian  Church.    By  Mrs. 

H.  Smith. 
Sydney  Smith's  Works,  vol.  i.  pp.  200-220. 


62.  Which  did  the  most  to  produce  the  French  Revolu- 
tion, the  Tyranny  of  the  Government,  the  Ex- 
cesses of  the  Higher  Orders,  or  the  Writings  of 
Voltaire,  Montesquieu,  and  Rousseau  f 

See  Lord  Jeffrey's  Essays,  vol.  ii.  pp.  56-101. 
Carlyle*s  French  Revolution. 
Michelet's  French  Revolution. 
Alison's  History  of  Europe. 
Thiers'  History  of  the  French  Revolution. 
Mignet's  Do. 

Smyth's  Lectures  on  Modern  History. 
Dr.  Cooke  Taylor's  Revolutions  in  Europe. 
Macfarlane's  French  Revolution. 
De  Stael's  Considerations  on  the  French  Revolution. 
Burke  on  the  French  Revolution. 
Niebuhr's  Age  of  the  French  Revolution. 
Sir  James  Mackintosh's  Worfks,  vol.  iii.  pp.  1-352. 


63.  Which  ivas  the  greater  Poet,  Byron  or  Burns  f 

See  Carlyle's  Hero-Worship.     "  The  Hero  as  Poet." 
Lord  Jeffrey's  Essays,  vol.  ii.  pp.  389-421. 
Carlyle's  Miscellanies.     ''Burns." 
Lockhart's  Life  of  Burns. 
Sydney  Taylor's  Works,  p.  288,  &c. 
See  also  Authorities  quoted  in  Question  31,  p.  215. 


QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION.  183 

64.  Is  there  reasonable  ground  for  believing  that  the 
Character  of  Richard  the  Third  was  not  so 
Atrocious  as  is  generally  supposed  f 

See  Halsted's  Richard  the  Third. 
Walpole's  Historic  Doubts. 
Bulwer's  Last  of  the  Barons. 


65.  Does  Happiness  or  Misery  preponderate  in  Life  f 

See  Dr.  Johnson.    Discontent  the  Common  Lot  of  all  Mankind. 
Jeremy  Taylor's  Sermon  **  Via  IntelligentisB." 
Sir  G.  Mackenzie's  ''Happiness.'* 
Goldsmith  on  the  Love  of  Life. 
Pope  on  Happiness. 
Thomson  on  the  Miseries  of  Life. 
Pollock  on  Happiness.     (Course  of  Time.) 
Paley  on  the  Happiness  of  the  World.     (Natural  Theology.) 
Burns's  Poem,  ''Man  was  made  to  Mourn." 


6Q.  Should  the  Press  be  totally  Free  f 

See  Milton  on  the  Liberty  of  the  Press. 

Curran's  Speeches  for  Rowan  and  Finnerty. 

Thoughts  on  Restraint  in  the  Publication  of  Opinion.     By 

the  Author  of  Essays  on  the  "Formation  of  Opinion." 
Sir  James  Mackintosh's  Works,  vol.  iii.  pp.  245,  255, 290, 539. 
Lord  Erskine's  Speeches  on  the  Liberty  of  the  Press. 
Hume's  Essay  on  the  Liberty  of  the  Press. 
Edinburgh  Review,  vol.  xxv.  pp.  112-124. 
Sidney  Taylor's  Works,  pp.  122,  144,  222. 


67.  Do  modern  Geological  Discoveries  agree  with  Holy 
Writf 

See  Ly ell's  Elements  of  Geology. 
Buckland's  Organic  Remains. 
Dr.  Pye  Smith  on  Geology. 
Vestiges  of  the  Natural  History  of  Creation. 
Phillips'  Geology. 
Humboldt's  Cosmos.     ^ 


184  QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION. 

See  Ansted's  Geology. 

G.  F.  Richardson  on  Geology. 
Ansted's  Ancient.  World. 

Also  a  series  of  Articles  and  Letters  in  the  **  London  Times," 
of  September  and  October,  1845. 


68.  Did  Circumstances  Justify  the  first  French  Revo- 
lution f 

See  Carlyle,  and  other  authorities  quoted  at  Questionl52. 
Paley  on  the  Right  of  Rebellion. 
Alison's  Europe. 
Arnold's  Modern  History. 
Taylor's  Revolutions  of  Europe. 
Lamartine's  History  of  the  Girondists, 


69.  Could  not  Arbitration  be  made  a  Substitute  for 
Warf 

See  Peace  Society's  Tracts. 

Debates  in  the  House  of  Commons,  1848-9. 
Dymond  on  War. 

Sir  J.  Mackintosh's  Works,  vol.  ii.  pp.  320-327. 
Reports  of  the  Peace  Congress,  1848-1849-1850. 
Elihu  Burritt's  Bond  of  Brotherhood. 


70.  Which  Character  is  the  more  to  be  admired;  that 
of  Loyola  or  Luther  f 

See  Macaulay's  Works.    Art.  ''Loyola." 
Montgomery's  "Luther." 
Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation. 
D'Aubigne's  History  of  the  Reformation. 
Stebbing's  History  of  the  Reformation. 
The  Jesuits,  by  Michelet. 
Michelet's  Life  of  Lutner. 
The  Jesuits  as  they  were  and  are. 
Isaac  Taylor's  Loyola  and  Jesuitism. 
Sir  James  Stephens's  Essays  #n  Ecclesiastical  Biography, 


QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION.  185 

71.  Are  there  good  Grounds  for  applying  the   Terra^^ 
''dark''  to  the  Middle  Ages^, 

See  Hallam  on  the  Middle  Ages. 

Wright's  Essays  on  the  Middle  Ages. 

Maccabe's  History  of  England  before  the  Revolution. 

Turner's  History  of  England  during  the  Middle  Ages. 

Maitland's  Dark  Ages. 

Berrington's  Literary  History  of  the  Middle  Ages. 

Guizot  on  Civilization. 


72.   Which  was  the  greater  Poet,  Chatterton  or  Cowper  f 

See  Southey's  Life  and  Works  of  Cowper. 
Hayley's  Do 

Gary's  Edition  of  Cowper's  Works. 
Hazlitt  on  the  British  Poets. 
Jeffrey's  Essays,  *' Cowper." 
Dr.  Johnson's  Remarks  on  Chatterton. 


73.  Are  Public  or  Private  Schools  to  be  preferred  f 

See  Amos  on  Commercial  Education. 
Arnold's  Miscellaneous  Works. 
Kay  on  the  Education  of  the  English  People. 
Cowper's  Tirocinium. 
Tremenheere's  Reports  on  Education. 


74.  Is  the  System  of  Education  pursued  at  our  Univer- 
sities in  accordance  with  the  Requirements  of 
the  Agef 

See  Whewell  on  University  Education. 
Huber's  English  Universities. 
The  Collegian's  Guide. 

Debate  on  University  Reform,  House  of  Commons,  1850. 
Kay's  Social   Condition   and   Education   of    the   English 

People. 
Edinburgh  Review,  vok  Ixxx. 


186  QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION. 

75.  Is  the  Decline  of  Slavery  in  Europe  attributable  to 
moral  or  to  economical  Influences  f 

See  James's  History  of  Chivalry. 
Hallam's  Middle  Ages. 

Macaulay's  History  of  England.     "Introductory  Chapter.'* 
Historical  Pictures  of  the  Middle  Ages. 
Guizot  on  Civilization. 


76.  Is  Anger  a  Vice  or  a  Virtue  f 

See  Paley's  Mdral  Philosophy. 

Adam  Smith's  Theory  of  Moral  Sentiments. 

Abercrombie  on  the  Moral  Feelings. 

Whewell's  Elements  of  Morality. 

Brown's  Ethics. 

Letters  to  my  Unknown  Friend.     *'  Temper." 


77.  Which  ivas  the  greatest  Hero,  Alexander,  Ccesar,  or 
Bonaparte  f 

See  Plutarch's  Lives. 

Carlyle's  Hero-Worship.     **The  Hero  as  King." 
Niebuhr's  History  of  Eome. 
Arnold's  History  of  the  Roman  Commonwealth. 
Bourrienne's  Napoleon. 


78.  Which  was  the  worse  Monarch,  Richard  the  Third 
or  Charles  the  Second  f 

See  Sharon  Turner's  Eichard  the  Third. 
Macaulay's  History  of  England. 
Sidney's  Diary  of  the  Times  of  Charles  the  Second. 
Walpole's  Historic  Doubts. 
Halsted's  Richard  the  Third. 


79.  Which  was  the  greater  man,  Franhlin  or  Wash- 
ington f 

See  Life  and  Times  of  Washington.    Family  Library, 
Bancroft's  History  of  the  United  States. 
Macgregor's  Progress  of  America,  vol.  i. 
Maunder's  Biographical  Treasury. 
Various  Lives  of  Franklin.    ,,. 


QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION.  187 

Is  it  probable  that  America  will  hereafter  become 
the  greatest  of  Nations  f 

See  Putnam's  American  Facts. 
Buckingham's  America. 
Lyell's  America. 

Macgregor's  Progress  of  America. 
Combe's  Notes  on  America. 
Hamilton's  Men  and  Manners  in  America. 
Wyse's  America. 


81.  Should  not  greater  Freedom  of  Expression  be  en- 
couraged in  Debate  ? 

See  Brande's  Dictionary  of  Science,  Literature  and  Art.    Art. 
"Eloquence,"  and  the  authorities  there  quoted. 
Cicero.    I>e  Oratore. 
Hume's  Essay  on  Eloquence. 


82.  Which  was  the  greater  Poet,  Chaucer  or  Spenser  % 

See  Hazlitt's  British  Poets. 

Cowden  Clarke's  Riches  of  Chaucer. 
Mitford's  Edition  of  Spenser. 
Tyrwhitt's  Edition  of  Chaucer. 
Bell's  English  Poets. 


83,  Is  the  Present  a  Poetical  Age  f 

See  WarwicJi's  Poet's  Pleasaunce. 

Introduction  to  Leigh  Hunt's  "Imagination  and  Fancy.' 

Moir's  Treatise  on  Poetry. 

Foster's  Handbook  of  Modern  European  Literature. 

Montgomery's  Lectures  on  Poetry. 

Macaulay's  Essays. 

Lord  Jeffrey's  Essays. 


84.  Was  Louis  XPV,  a  great  Man  f 

See  Miss  Pardoe's  Louis  XTV. 
James's  Life  of  Louis  XIV. 
Michelet's  History  of  France. 


188  QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION. 

See  Macaulay's  History  of  England. 
Crowe's  History  of  France. 
Voltaire's  Age  of  Louis  XIV. 


85.  Is  it  the  Duty  of  a  Government  to  make  ampler 
Provision  for  the  Literary  Winters  of  the  Nation  f 

See  Sonthey's  Colloquies  on  Society. 

Grisenthwaite  on  the  Claims  of  Genius. 

Forster's  Life  and  Adventures  of  Oliver  Goldsmith. 


,  Which  is  the  greater  Poet,  Mrs,  Howitt  or  Mrs, 
Hemans  ? 

See  Kowton's  Female  Poets. 

Gilfillan's  Literary  Portraits.    Mary  Howitt. 
Lord  Jeffrey's  Essay  on  Mrs.  Hemans. 


87.  Should  7iot  all  National  Works  of  Art  be  entirely 
free  to  the  Public  f 

See  Debates  in  British  Parliament  on  the  subject. 
Hamilton  on  Popular  Education. 


88.  Are  not  the  Rudiments  of  individual  Character  dis- 
cernible in  Childhood  ? 

See  Essays  on  the  Formation  of  Character. 
Combe  on  the  Constitution  of  Man. 
Combe  on  Infancy. 
Early  Influences. 
Jean  Paul  Bichter's  Levana. 


89.  7s  not  Satire  highly  useful  as  a  Moral  Agent  ? 

See  the  Works  of  Rabelais.    Duchat's  translation. 
Leigh  Hunt's  Wit  and  Humor^ 
Eclectic  Review,  1845.    The  Satirical  Writers  of  the  Middle 

Ages. 
Sterne  on  Satirical  Wit. 
Hazlitt  on  the  Comic  Writers  of  England. 
Madan's  Juvenal  and  Persius. 


QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION.  189 

90.  Has  not  the  Faculty  of  Humor  been  of  essential 
Service  to  Civilization  ? 

See  Leigh  Hunt's  Wit  and  Humor. 

Mackinnon's  History  of  Civilization. 
Carlyle's  Miscellanies.    Article  on  Richter. 
Hazlitt  on  the  Comic  Writers  of  England. 
Burton's  Anatomy  of  Melancholy. 


91.  Is  it  not  to  Emigration  that  England  must  mainly 
look  for  the  Relief  of  her  Population  f 

See  Thornton's  Over-population  and  its  remedy. 
Merivale's  Colonization  and  Colonies. 
Torrens  on  Emigration. 
Reports  of  Emigration  Commissioners. 
Morning  Chronicle.    Articles  on  Emigration.    1850. 
Howitt's  Colonization. 
Laing's  Notes  of  a  Traveler  (second  series). 


92.  Does  National  Character  descend  from  age  to  age  f 

See  Carlyle  on  Characteristics. 

Prichard  on  the  History  of  Man. 
Combe  on  the  Constitution  of  Man. 


93.  Do  the  Associations  entitled  ''  Art  Unions^''  tend  to 
promote  the  Spread  of  the  Fine  Arts  f 

See  Reports  of  Art  Unions. 

Mrs.  Jameson's  Art  and  Morals, 


94.  Is  it  possible  that  the  World  will  ever  again  possess 
a  Writer  as  great  as  Shakespeare  f 

See  Dryden  on  Shakespeare. 
Hazhtt  on  Shakespeare    • 
Schlegel  on  Shakespeare's  Drama. 
Voltaire  on  Shakespeare. 


190  QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION. 

95.  Is  the  cheap  Literature  of  the  Age  on  the  whole  bene* 
flcial  to  general  Morality  ? 

See  Publications  of  the  Society  for  the  Diffusion  of  Knowledge. 
Bacon  on  Knowledge. 
Chambers's  PubUcations  generally. 


96.  Should  not  Practice  in  Athletic  Games  form  a  part 
of  every  System  of  Education  f 

See  Walker's  Manly  Exercises. 

Eees's  Cyclopaedia.  Art.  '*  Gymnastics." 
Encyclopaedia  Britannica.  Art.  ''Education." 
Craig's  Philosophy  of  Training. 
Richter's  Levana. 


97.  Is  not  the  Game  of  Chess  a  good  Intellectual  and 
Moral  Exercise  f 

See  Franklin's  Morals  of  Chess. 
Walker's  Chess  Studies. 
Staunton's  Chess  Players'  Handbook. 
Tomlinson's  Amusements  in  Chess. 


,  Have  Mechanics^  Institutions  answered  the  Expecta- 
tions of  their  Founders  f 

See  the  City  of  London  Magazine,  1842-43. 
Reports  of  the  Manchester  Athenaeum. 
Reports  of  the  Liverpool  Mechanics'  Institution. 
Brougham  on  Mechanics'  Institutions. 
Manual  of  Mechanics'  Institutions. 


99.  Which  is  to  be  preferred^  a  Town  or  a  Country  Life  ? 

See  Howitt's  Rural  Life  of  England. 

of  Germany. 

Knight's  London. 

Jesse's  Literary  Memorials  of  London. 

Scenes  and  Tales  of  Country  Life. 

Blaine's  Encyclopaedia  of  Rural  Sports. 
MiUer's  Pictures  of  Country  Life. 
The  Boy's  Country  Book. 


QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION.  1^1 

100.    Which   was   the  greater   Poet^    Wordsworth   or 
Byron  f 

See  Jeffrey's  Essays,  vol.  ii.  pp.  366-371. 

Edinburgh  Review  :  on  Wordsworth,  and  on  Byron, 

Quarterly  Review  :  on  Wordsworth,  and  on  Byron. 

Macaul'ay's  Critical  Essays,  vol.  i.  pp.  312-352. 

Sydney  Taylor's  Works,  p.  288. 

Moore's  Life  of  Byron. 

British  and  Foreign  Review,  vol.  vii. 


101.  Which  is  the  more  baneful,  Skepticism  or  Super- 
stition f 

See  Reason  and  Faith,  by  H.  Rogers.    Reprinted  from  the  Edin- 
burgh Review. 
Cairns  on  Moral  Freedom. 
Coleridge's  Inquiring  Spirit. 
The  Natural  History  of  Enthusiasm, 
Fanaticism. 
Hare's  Victory  of  Faith, 


102.  Is  the  average  Duration  of  Human  Life  increas- 
ing or  diminishing  f 

See  Porter's  Progress  of  the  Nation. 

M'Culloch's  Statistics  of  the  British  Empire. 
Neison's  Contributions  to  Vital  Statistics. 
Reports  of  the  Registrar-General. 
The  Claims  of  Labor. 
Combe's  Physiology. 


103.  Is  Life  Assurance  at  present  conducted  on  safe 
and  equitable  Principles  f 

See  Baylis's  Arithmetic  of  Life  Assurance. 

Morgan's  Principles  and  Doctrines  of  Assurance 
Pocock's  Explanation  of  Life  Assurances. 
De  Morgan's  Treatise  on  Probabilities. 


192  QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION. 

104 .  Are  there  good  Reasons  for  supposing  that  the 
Ruins  recently  discovered  in  Central  America 
are  of  very  great  Antiquity  f 

See  Stephens's  Central  America. 

Do  Do.        Second  visit. 

Fosbroke's  Encyclopaedia  of  Antiquities. 
Drnlop's  Travels  in  Central  America. 


105.  Do  Titles  operate  beneficially  in  a  Community  f 

See  Paley  on  Honor. 
Dymond's  Works. 

Bentham  on  the  Eationale  of  Keward. 
Macintyre's  Influence  of  Aristocracies. 
Hamilton  on  Bewards. 


106.  Would  not  Pulpit  Oratory  become  more  effective  if 
the  Clergy  were  to  preach  extemporaneously  f 

See  Brougham  on  the  Eloquence  of  the  Ancients. 
Whately's  Rhetoric. 
Spalding's  Rhetoric. 

Brande's  Dictionary  of  Science,  Literature,  and  Art.    Art. 
**  Eloquence." 


107.  Is  not  Intemperance  the  chief  Source  of  Crime  f^ 

See  Adshead's  Prisons  and  Prisoners. 
Life  of  William  Allen. 

Doubleday's  Statistical  History  of  Englando 
Begg's  Lectures  on  Depravity. 


108.  Should  not  the  Study  of  History  be  more  encour 
aged  than  it  is  f 

See  M'Cullagh  on  History. 
Bigland  on  History. 
Carlyle's  Miscellanies.    History. 


Kew  and  Popular  Books  sent  Free  of  Postage  at  Prices  Annexed. 

GERMAN"  AT  A  GLANCE. 

*'Spreclieii  Sle  Deutscli?'* 

A  new  system,  on  the  most  simple  principles,  for  Uni- 
versal Self-Tuition,  with  English  pronunciation  of  every 
word.  By  this  system  any  person  can  become  proficient  in 
the  German  language  in  a  very  short  time.  It  is  the  most 
complete  and  easy  method  ever  published.  By  Franz 
Thimm.     (Revised  Edition.) 

Bound  in  paper  cover.     Price 25  cts. 

Bound  in  boards,  with  cloth  back.    Price 35    " 

FRENCH  AT  A  GLANCE. 

"Parlez  vous  Fraiicals?" 

Uniform  aad  arranged  the  same  as  "German  at  a 
Glance,'*  being  the  most  thorough  and  easy  system  for 
Self-Tuition.     (Revised  Edition.) 

Bound  in  paper  cover.     Price 25  cts. 

Bound  in  boards,  cloth  back.    Price 35    " 

SPANISH  AT  A  GLANCE. 

<<«,Habla  V.  Espanol?'9 

A  new  system  for  Self-Tuition,  arranged  the  same  as 
French  and  German,  being  the  easiest  method  of  acquiring 
a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  Spanish  language.  (Revised 
Edition.) 

Bound  in  paper  cover.     Price 25  cts. 

Bound  in  boards,  cloth  back.    Price 35    " 

ITALIAN  AT  A  GLANCE.  i 

"Parlate  Italiano?" 

Uniform  in  size  and  style  with  German,  French,  and 
Spanish,  being  the  most  simple  method  of  learning  the 
ItUian  language.     (Revised  Edition.) 

Bound  in  paper  cover.     Price 25  cts. 

Bound  in  boards,  cloth  back.    Price. 35    *' 

SZCZIL8Z0B  FUBL23BZ17a  BOUSE,  29  and  31  Beekman  Street,  Hew  7v^  H.  7, 
P.  O.  Box  1X44. 


r^WAND  POPULAR  BOOKS  SENT  FREE  OF  POSTAGf  AT  Pn\Cl5  ANNEXED. 

'^     PAYNE'S  BUSINESS  EDUCATOR. 

An  encyclopedia  of  the  knowledge  necessary  to  the  conduct  of  busi- 
ness. Among  the  contents  are  :  Ar,  ep'^ome  of  tbe  Laws  of  the  various 
States  of  the  Union,  alphabetically  ar/anged  for  ready  reference ; 
Model  Business  Letters  and  Answers  ;  Lessons 
in  Penmanship  ;  Interest  Tables  ;  Rules  of  Order 
for  Deliberative  Assemblies  and  Debating  Socie- 
ties ;  Tables  of  Weights  and  Measures,  Standard 
and  Metric  Systems  ;  Lessons  in  Type-Writing ; 
Local  Forms  for  all  Instruments  used  in  Ordin- 
ary Business,  such  as  Leases,  Assignments,  Cton- 
tracts,  etc.,  etc.;  Dictionary  of  Mercantile 
Terras ;  Interest  Laws  of  the  United  States  ; 
Official,  Military,  Scu Mastic,  Naval  and  Profes- 
sional Titles  used  in  the  U.  S. ;  How  to  Measure 
Land ;  Value  of  Foreign  Gold  and  Silver  Coins 
in  the  United  States  ;  iZ'lucational  Statistics  of 
the  World;  List  of  Abbreviations;  Latin, 
French,  Spanish  and  Italian  Words  and  Phrases  ;  Rules  of  Pronuncia- 
tion ;  Marks  of  Accent ;  Dio*'onary  of  Synonjrms  ;  Copyright  Law  of 
the  United  States,  etc.,  etc.,  miking  in  all  the  most  complete  self-edu» 
lator  published,  containing  600  pages,  bound  in  extra  cloth. 
Price,  $9.00. 


••Knov  the  Iet?  and  avoid  litigation.*^ 

PAYNE'S  LEGAL  ADVISER. 

4  new  epitome  of  the  Laws  of  the  different  States  of  our  Union  and 
those  of  the  General  Government  of  the  United 
States,  a  id  will  be  found  invaluable  to  those  who 
are  forc^vl  to  appeal  to  the  law,  as  well  as  to 
that  large  class  who  wish  to  avoid  it.  The 
whole  is  alphabeticaily  arranged  so  as  to  make 
reference  to  it  easy.  This  work  also  contains 
legal  forms  of  Deeds,  Mortgages,  Contracts, 
Assignments,  Power  of  Attorney,  Acknowledg- 
ments,  Builders'  Contracts,  Bills  of  Lading, 
Bills  of  Exchange,  Affidavits,  Certificate  of  In. 
corporation.  Form*  of  Release,  For  S|^le  Con. 
tracts,  Responsibilities  of  Common  Carriers, 
Proofs  of  Loss,  Leases,  Assignment  of  Lease. 
Articles  of  Partnership,  Notice  of  Dissolution, 
Deed  oC  Trust,  Bill  of  Sale,  Wills,  etc.,  etc.    Large  12mo,  cloth,  300 

^^^^'  Price,  S1.50. 

iSXCEI^SlOIt    I»XJI31L,ISH1JVG     XJOUBX:, 

ZQ  and.  31  Be«kman  Street,  New  York,  N*  T« 


NEW  AND  POPULAR  BOOKS  SENT  FREE  OFPOSTAGE  AT  PRICES  ANNEXED. 

BROWN'S  RECITER.—Containing  73  Selections  ot 
popular  recitations  and  Readings ;  many  of  which  have  never 
before  appeared  in  print.  There  are  more  funny  selections  in 
this  book  than  serious  ones,  because  the  author  has  found  that 
people  like  fun  better  than  sadness.  It  contains  202  pages. 
Paper  Cover,  Price 25  cents ;  cloth,  75  ceuts. 

EXCELSIOR  LUMBER   LOG  BOOK  AND 

Rapid  Reckoner. — Containing  tables  of  Board,  Scant- 
ling and  Plank  Measure,  Cubic  Contents  of  Square  and  Round 
Timber,  Cubic  Contents  of  Round  Timber  when  Squared, 
Logs  Reduced  to  inch  Board  Measure,  Standard  Contents  of 
Logs,  Wood  Measure  in  Load  and  Pile,  Cost  of  Wood,  Cost  of 
Lumber,  Weight  of  Grains  per  Bushel,  Contents  of  Graneries, 
Bins,  etc.,  Capacity  of  Cisterns,  Weight  of  Seasoned  Lumber 
per  1000  feet,  Weight  of  Solids  per  Cubic  Foot,  Liquors  per 
Gallon,  Wood  per  Cord,  Length  of  Nails  and  Number  in  a 
Pound,  and  other  Valuable  Tables,  besides  Miscellaneous  and 
Useful  Information,  etc.  Containing  200  pages.  Boards, 
Cloth  Back,  Price,  Postpaid 30  cents* 

NEW  YARNS  AND  FUNNY  JOKES.~Aii  the 

latest  ''Good  Things"  to  tell  your  slower  neighbor,  to  while 
away  the  tedium  of  the  railroad  or  steamboat  travel;  to  help 
you  through  a  rainy  day  in  the  country;  to  cheer  you  in  a 
hundred  situations  which  are  dull  or  depressing.  It  has  a 
thousand  good  stories,  aphorisms,  epigrams,  dialogues,  catches, 
conundrums  and  sells;  and  it  has  a  hundred  and  seventy  funny 
pictures  by  the  funniest  men  of  the  day — Chip  Drake,  Howarth, 
Carleton,  Sheppard,  Peterson,  Burns,  Bisbee,  Smith,  Spedon, 
etc.,  etc,  in  no  large  pages  (quarto),  in   fancy  cover.     Post* 

paid accents. 

CASEY'S  POPULAR  RECITATIONS.-Fun. 

ny  Stories  and  Comic  Songs.  Containing  81  selections,  many 
of  which  have  never  before  appeared  in  print.  This  is  without 
question  the  best  b^k  for  professional  or  amateur  recitals. 
200  pages,  paper  covers.  Price,  25 cents;  cloth,  75  Cents* 

EXCELSIOR  PUBLISHING  HOUSE, 
29  and  31  Beekman  Street,  New  York,  N,  ¥• 


PRACTICAL    ELECTRICAL   WORKS. 


ELECTRICAL     INSTRUMENT     MAKING 

tor  Amateurs.— By  S.  R.  Bottone.  Contains  plain  instruc 
tions,  by  help  of  which  any  one  with  an  ordinary  knowledge  o\ 
English,  and  moderately  handy  with  tools,  can  make  for  hi:; 
own  entertainment,  or  for  use  in  the  study  of  a  great  science, 
all  the  instruments  now  employed  in  theoretical  or  practical 
Electricity,  from  Torsion  Balances,  Holtz  Machines  and  Indue 
tion  Coils  to  Dynamos,  Electric  Motors,  Telephones,  Phono- 
graphs and  Micrographs ;  and  all  the  experiments  of  the  great 
leaders  in  these  studies,  Wheats  tone,  Bell,  Price,  Hughes  and 
Edi9«n,  can,  after  an  attentive  perusal  of  this  book,  be  under- 
stood and  repeated.     200  pages,    cloth,  postpaid,  75  ceilts. 

ELECTRO-MOTORS;  HOW  MADE  AND 

Mow  Used. — A  handbook  for  amateurs  and  practical  men,  by 
S.  R.  Bottone,  author  of  *' The  Dynamo,"  ^*  Electricallnstru- 
ment  Making  for  Amateurs,"  "Electric  Bells,"  etc.,  etc.,  and 
A.  M.  A.  Beale,  author  of  Beale's  Calisthenics,  etc. — A  com- 
plete and  simple  explanation  of  the  source  of  the  power  in  a 
dynamo,  ani  the  method  of  applying  the  same,  commencing 
with  a  Simple  Motor,  and  proceeding  to  an  exposition  of  the 
Siemen's,  Thompson's,  Walker's,  Grison,  Edison  and  other 
motors.  In  addition  three  special  chapters  by  an  American 
author  follow  in  which  the  information  embraces  all  American 
improvements.  The  work  is  probably  the  most  complete  and 
easily  understood  of  any  of  the  many  now  in  the  field. 
180  pages,  cloth.  Price,  postpaid 75  cents» 

Electric    Bells   and    All    About    Them.— 

S.  R.  Bottone.  196  pages.  100  illustrations.  In  this  volume 
the  whole  subject  of  Electric  Bells  is  explained  in  simple 
language.  Any  one  with  an  English  education  can  master  it  in 
a  few  hours.  The  illustrations  are  great  helps  to  understanding 
the  descriptions.  The  work  begins  by  showing  how  the  force 
applied  to  Electric  Bells  is  produced,  and  goes  on  to  tell  how  to 
arrange  every  kind  of  signal  which  can  be  given  by  electricity, 
as  well  as  all  needed  information  that  belongs  to  the  subject. 
It  is  just  the  book  needed  by  mechanics  who  have  occasional 
calls  upon  them  to  mount  bells,  and  Bell-Hangers,  Locksmiths, 
etc.,  who  are  not  yet  acquainted  with  all  the  uses  of  the  Electric 
Bell.     Cloth,  price,  postpaid 75  centS* 

HOW    TO    MAKE    A   DYNAMO.-a  practical 

treatise  for  amateurs.  Containing  numerous  illustrations  and 
detailed  instructions  for  constructing  a  small  dynamo,  to  pro- 
duce the  electric  light.  By  Alfred  Crofts.  Bound  in  cloth ; 
price,  postpaid .♦ 75  cents. 

Any  of  the  above  works  sent  postpaid  on  receipt  of  price. 

EXCELSIOR  PUBLISHING  HOUSE, 
29  an<J.31  J^eelowan  Street,  New  York,  N.  y* 


VB  36883 


54!;)58 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  LIBRARY 


»X7BM>T?2TT*S 

Select  Eecitations  and  Eeadingp, 

IN    PROSE   AND    POETRY. 

For  the  Use  of  Schools,  Colleges,  and  Public  Beaders. 

1 

OO^ffTlESKrTS. 

Attnle  anrl  Willie's  Prayer. 

He  Boeth  his  Alms  to  be  Seen  of 

O'Mnrtogh, 

Annie's  Ticket, 
i      Anthony's  I'rayer. 

Men. 
Henry  of  Navarre  before  Paris. 

One  of  King  Charles'  Madcap  ISm 
Only  a  Jew. 

Arab's  Farewell  to  his  Steed,  The. 

Her  Last  L«ok. 

Over  the  H  ill  from  the  Poorh  <Ma 

Baby's  Kiss. 

Heroism. 

Over  the  Hill  to  the  PcKthoxirt. 

Ballad  of  Roland  Clare.  Tho. 

Herv6  RieL 

Over  the  River. 

I^aron's  Last  Banquet,  The. 

How  He  Saved  St.  Michael's. 

Out  in  the  Storm. 

j          I ,  atlle  o  f  Fontenoy,  The. 

How  Jane  Conquest  Rang  the  Bell 

Painter  of  Floreno*.  Th» 

'    iJattleoffvrVjThe. 

In  the  Tunnel 

Papa's  Letter. 

liattle  ofMorgarten,  The. 

Isabel's  Grave. 

Parrhasius. 

Jleau. 

Tvan,  theC/.ar 

Passof  Brander,  Thei 
Phiraiood'sLeap. 

IJonediction,  The. 

Jean  Goello's  Yam. 

Ikjth  Geleit. 

Jim  Bludso. 

Polish  Boy,  The. 

l$ai  Gibbon's  Delirerance. 

Poor  Little  Joe. 

.  iJiil  Mason's  Bride. 
Boat-KaoCTlie. 

John  Maynard. 

Portrait,  The. 

Kate  Maloney. 

Ramon. 

Bridge  of  Sighs,  The. 

Karl  the  Martvr. 

Red  Jacket,  Th«. 

Burial  0  f  Little  Nei». 

King  Robert  of  Sicfly. 

Rescue,  The. 

Caldwel  1  of  Springfield. 

Last  Banquet,  The. 

Ride  of  Jennie  McNeal,  The. 

Charge  of  the  Light  Brteade,  The. 

Last  Hymn,  The. 

Richelieu  ;  or,  The  Conspiraqr- 

Child's  Prayer,  The. 

Last  Redoubt,  The. 

Sea  Captain's  Story,  The. 

Confession  of  a  L)runkard. 

Last  Words. 

Sergeant's    Story,   The,   of  tt* 

christian  Maiden  and  the  Lion, 

Leaguer  of  Lucknow,  The. 

Light  Brigade. 

The^ 

Leaj)  of  Roushan  Beg,  The. 

Seventh  Fusileers. 

Ctowardly  Jim. 

Legen*  of  the  Church  of  Lo»  An- 

She is  Dead. 

Cuddle  iJoon.  ..^ 

geles. 

Ship  on  Fire,  Tha. 

Curfew  must  nftt'King  To-XIght. 

LegendofaVeiL 

Sir-'s  Little  Girl 

Death.- 

Leper,  The. 

Sister  of  Charity,  That. 

Ueath-bed  of  Ben^^  Arnold. 
Ueath^fKingJohn.' 

Little  Rov  I  Dreamed  About,  The. 

Somebody's  Darling: 

Little  Golden  Hair. 

fiomebod3''s  Mother. 

Death  of  Murat. 

Little  Grave.  The.                                Spanish  Armada,  Tha                        I  i 

'Jeath  of 'Old  Braze." 

Little  Hero,  The^ 

Spanish  Mother,  Thei 

Death  of  the  Drurfkard,  The. 

Little  Jim. 

Spanish  Page,  The. 

Death  of  the  Old  Squiie.  'Pn^  , 

Little  Ned. 

Station  Agent's  Story,  Th«, 
Story  of  the  Faithful  Soul,  Tt  \ 

Death  o  ft  he  RevcIle|H|».  •^^ 

Little  PhiL 

Defence  of  Luclsnow^^K    ^^ 

Little  Will 

Street  Musicians,  The. 

Darmot's  Parting.      ^           -^ 
Diver,  The.                  ^             ^ 

Little  Rocket'!  Christma* 

Street  Organ-Player,  Theu 

Lochinvar. 

Sue's  Thanksgiving. 

Downfall  of  Poland,  TBieS 

Lo-  and  Found. 

Suicide,  Tha 

Dream  of  Eugene  Aram,  The. 

"  Mmch  for  Lynch.*' 

Supporting  the  Guns. 

Drowned. 

Maclaine's  Child. 

There'll  be  Room  in  Heavea. 

Dying  Hebrew.  Tha 

MainTruck,Thej  or,A  Leap  forWfb 

Three  Sons,  The. 

Eagle's  Rock,  The 

Maniac,  The. 

Three  Words  (The);  Arnold *§ 

b/lucation. 

Marco  Bozzaris. 

Traitor 

Svangelist,  The. 

Marseillaise  at  Sebastopol,  The. 

Tiger  Bay. 

Execution  of  Montrose,  The. 

Martyrs  of  Sandomir,  The. 

Tim's  Kit 

Execution  of  Queen  Mary. 
Face  \gainst  the  Pane,  The. 

Mary  Queen  of  Scots. 

Told  at  the  Falcon. 

Mary,  the  Maid  of  the  Inn. 

Tom. 

Fall  of  Pemberton  Mill,  The. 

Mask  "and  Domino. 

To  Mark  Mother's  Graya, 

Farmer  Gray's  Photograph. 

Master  Jonny's  Next-door  Neigli- 

Tramp,  The.                                      \ 

Father^.Tohn. 

bor. 

Trooper's  Story,  The. 

Fearless  De  Courcy,  The. 

Maud  Muller. 

True  Hero,  A. 

Fireman,  The. 

Mona's  Waters. 

Turn  Mother's  Face  to  th©  Wdi 

First  Settler's  Story,  The. 

Mother  and  her  Dead  Child,  The. 

Two  Loves  and  a  Life. 

Flight  for  Life,  The. 

"Mother's  Fool" 

Unfinished  Prayer,  Tho 

Foreclosure  of  the  Mortgage,  The. 

My  Bread  on  the  Waters. 

We  are  Seven. 

Forgive,— No,  Never. 

New  Year's  Eve. 

WhatAiled"  Ugly  Sam." 

Forgotten  Actor,  The. 

Night  Watch,  The. 

Where  the  Angels  Lingered. 

Found  Dead. 

Nobody's  Child. 

Will  the  New  Year  Com*   "Q^ 

5alley  Slave,  The. 

Nothing. 

Night,  Mamma. 

Bame  Knut  Played,  The. 

Ode  to  Eloquence. 

Woolen  Doll,  The. 

filove  and  the  Lions,  'L"he, 

Old  Man's  Prayer,  The. 

Yeoman's  Storj',  The 

Beart's  Charity,  The. 

O  Maria,  Regiua  Miserioordise. 

Young  Tramp,  The. 

Containing:  508  pages,  bound  in  extra  Cloth,  Price  Sl.Oib 

For  sale  by  all  Booksellers,  or  fsent  postpaid,  on  reoeipt  of  pr;  e. 

w 

EXCELSIOR  PUBLISHING  HOUSE,  29  and  31  Beekman  St.,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

